THE CANCER KILLING PDCOM - Blow-by-Blow Coverage of Democratic Primary Race

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You might be right... but I haven't seen any of these bloodless revolutions that actually settle anything... how many wars have been fought since the balkanization of that area? Look at poor Lebanon with their Cedar Revolution. Sure they chased out Syria without a shot... but they didn't solve their main issue and found themselves getting the crap bombed out of them thanks to their southern brothers acting just as they did before the peaceful revolution (probably under the guidance of Syria). All of those peaceful politicians that helped with the revolution... how many of them are now dead, blown away by car bombs, bombed buildings or bullets in the face?

I really wish peaceful revolution worked, but I have not yet seen an example of one that doesn't simply push the violence off until a bit later, or was simply an example of one jackbooted thug taking over control from another jackbooted thug.

[Cain]

When has anything settled anything?

Sound suspiciously like you're suggesting there is an end state of political organization there...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

When has anything settled anything?

Sound suspiciously like you're suggesting there is an end state of political organization there...

No, what I'm saying is that the "revolution" simply pushed the violence out further, than engaging in the violence upfront... sorta like a ballooning mortgage. Consider Lebanon, for example. Their peaceful Cedar Revolution was intended to A) Free them from Syrian control and B) Provide a democratic government that would bring a moderate view to bear within Lebanon (one of my friends was there when it all went down). They accomplished neither. Their protests simply led Syria to take a less direct approach and left their government as impotent as Bob Dole before Viagra. Rather than going toe to toe against Hezbollah, the Cedar revolution simply thought that if they took over the government Hezzie would turn over a new leaf. Instead, Hezbollah invaded Israel, kidnapped a soldier and brought holy hell down on everyone.

Since Syria has abdicated, many of Syria's political enemies in Lebanon have mysteriously blown up or got a bad case of lead poisoning. The 'peaceful revolution' brought lots of rhetoric and good feeling, but it didn't fix anything. It didn't happen without bloodshed, the bloodshed was simply delayed a bit... and best yet, its not bloodshed from the hands of the revolutionaries, its bloodshed from those the revolutionaries tired to peacefully beat.

I'm not arguing that there IS an end state... just that what we sometimes perceive as peaceful revolutions might be a bit myopic.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

There may be no particular political end-state, but there can be political climates more or less conducive to general public security and peace. No revolution ever fixed an entire country, but there have been a few revolutions that, at the very least, made progress in that direction. What happened to former USSR states didn't happen because people got fed up with Moscow, it happened because Moscow's stranglehold on the USSR caved in and the "freed" states had no choice but to withdraw. In most of these cases they weren't trying to accomplish anything except to avoid total collapse, and even outside the USSR there was no significant drive away from totalitarianism. Like Tosk says, the people switched from getting screwed by Moscow to getting screwed by the local tough guys. It wasn't a revolution in the sense that people threw off the bonds of unjust government, which actually does happen once in a while even if it just sounds like a tired speech by the Sons of Liberty.

Back on the subject of the American election this year, even if Obama wins the presidency and the Democrats take full control of Congress, I expect very little to change. Some token gestures given back to the people maybe, but even that much isn't guaranteed. Mostly everyone will go to DC, keep bitching about each other as if there are any actual differences between them, and spend the next four years wringing their hands and trying not to piss off the demographics who already hate them.

[LMNO]

Well, you have to admit, whoever gets the Prez seat next has a lot of shit in front of them.

The economy's in the tank, the deficit is ginormous, soldiers are dying in Iraq, and gas prices are over $100 a barrel.

There's not much you can do to fix it.  Raise taxes on the rich, subsidize failed mortages, get the troops home safely, and hope Iran doesn't assimilate Iraq.

A few speeches and $600 a citizen isn't gonna do much.

[AFK]

Agreed.  I think no matter who wins will be looking at a one-term presidency, UNLESS there is some miraculous turnaround in the economy, the war gets better OR whoever runs against the incumbent is off-the-map mediocre. 

Of course, I may be overestimating the will of the American people to actually care enough about the state of affairs. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think you're dead on LMNO. That's a load of crap to deal with, not to mention trying to recover from the black eye we got with Bush in the White House. As for Iraq, I have yet to figure out how they're gonna pull the troops home 'safely' anytime in the next 2 years without simply handing Iraq over to Iran and Saudi to fight over.

I predict, that no matter what, no matter who is president... life as an Iraqi is gonna suck for the foreseeable future.

[Cain]

US warships off the coast of Lebanon suggest that there are no plans to leave the Middle East anytime soon.  Israel and Syria are about 2 years overdue on another pointless round of bloodletting, and the US strategy in the region involved Syria as the next target in the transformation of the Middle East.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

US warships off the coast of Lebanon suggest that there are no plans to leave the Middle East anytime soon.  Israel and Syria are about 2 years overdue on another pointless round of bloodletting, and the US strategy in the region involved Syria as the next target in the transformation of the Middle East.

You think they'll hit Syria before Iran?

[Cain]

US warships off the coast of Lebanon suggest that there are no plans to leave the Middle East anytime soon.  Israel and Syria are about 2 years overdue on another pointless round of bloodletting, and the US strategy in the region involved Syria as the next target in the transformation of the Middle East.

You think they'll hit Syria before Iran?

Absolutely.  Syria is the conduit for Iranian intelligence and supplies to Hezbollah, as well as supporting Hezbollah with their own resources.  Syria's tacit alliance with Hezbollah massively increases the threat range on Israel and makes any war much more difficult.  Taking out Syria, in theory, solves this problem (it doesn't, but that is how the theory goes) and opens up the possibility of war on Iran without repurcussions like missiles raining down into north Israel, or car-bombings against European and American interests

It wont work, because Hezbollah realized the weakness of relying on Iran too much and have their own contacts within the former Yugoslavia who can supply them with the materials they need.  Admittedly, those are harder to procure than ones being taken over the border by Sryian officials with diplomatic immunity, but if I know anything its that someone, somewhere is always willing to risk dying to make a quick, tax-free buck.  It also wont work because Hezbollah are actually based on legitimate Lebanese greivances, and are not just some mindless drones of Iran, but the NeoCons are getting their grand strategy on now, and so have become impervious to that kind of reasoning.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

US warships off the coast of Lebanon suggest that there are no plans to leave the Middle East anytime soon.  Israel and Syria are about 2 years overdue on another pointless round of bloodletting, and the US strategy in the region involved Syria as the next target in the transformation of the Middle East.

You think they'll hit Syria before Iran?

Absolutely.  Syria is the conduit for Iranian intelligence and supplies to Hezbollah, as well as supporting Hezbollah with their own resources.  Syria's tacit alliance with Hezbollah massively increases the threat range on Israel and makes any war much more difficult.  Taking out Syria, in theory, solves this problem (it doesn't, but that is how the theory goes) and opens up the possibility of war on Iran without repurcussions like missiles raining down into north Israel, or car-bombings against European and American interests

It wont work, because Hezbollah realized the weakness of relying on Iran too much and have their own contacts within the former Yugoslavia who can supply them with the materials they need.  Admittedly, those are harder to procure than ones being taken over the border by Sryian officials with diplomatic immunity, but if I know anything its that someone, somewhere is always willing to risk dying to make a quick, tax-free buck.  It also wont work because Hezbollah are actually based on legitimate Lebanese greivances, and are not just some mindless drones of Iran, but the NeoCons are getting their grand strategy on now, and so have become impervious to that kind of reasoning.

Well, I doubt that the neocons will have the power to do anything for a long time... even if McCain gets the Oval Office, I doubt the GOP will maintain as many seats in the House and Senate, no matter how much McCain might like to kick Iran's ass (and there are some legitimate reasons), he won't without Congress. And Congress, if controlled by the Donks, aren't gonna go for a neocon strategy. I would also argue that McCain isn't a NeoCon, he sees war as a useful tool (which is scary) but I don't think he's got the same philosophy as Rumsfeld, Rove, ad nausea.

If the Dems control both houses and the Exectuive, things may get interesting. Surely, they could pull out... but every contact I have in the ME seems to think that would be folly. If they don't pull out, then I could see them trying to secure their position, particularly against Iran. On the up side, none of the candidates are Dominionists, so I think Israel won't get the biased attention its received for the past 8 years... which might calm things a bit, I dunno.

Either way, I think we'll be there for the next four years at least, probably the next couple decades if we actually take on another nation in the area.

[Cain]

Perhaps.

But they might not need to.  If, for example, Hezbollah were to attack the American warships.  Putting them into the area is act of provocation, as far as Hezbollah are concerned, and if they send up a UAV with explosives and crash it into a US warship, as a show of force....well, the analogies to the USS Cole will become tedious after day 2.

Putting the military into any situation automatically increases the chances of a war or some kind of armed conflict kicking off, simply because its the nature of the beast.  If they're playing the odds, it could be this is the chance needed to get some US naval support on any Israeli attack.  As far as I know, Israel is the one expected by the US strategists to do the heavy lifting in any war against Syria/Hezbollah.  Israeli strategists disagreed, in 2003 and 2006, but they cant keep turning down US suggestions forever.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Perhaps.

But they might not need to.  If, for example, Hezbollah were to attack the American warships.  Putting them into the area is act of provocation, as far as Hezbollah are concerned, and if they send up a UAV with explosives and crash it into a US warship, as a show of force....well, the analogies to the USS Cole will become tedious after day 2.

Putting the military into any situation automatically increases the chances of a war or some kind of armed conflict kicking off, simply because its the nature of the beast.  If they're playing the odds, it could be this is the chance needed to get some US naval support on any Israeli attack.  As far as I know, Israel is the one expected by the US strategists to do the heavy lifting in any war against Syria/Hezbollah.  Israeli strategists disagreed, in 2003 and 2006, but they cant keep turning down US suggestions forever.

Well, maybe... I can't imagine that Hezbollah will attack one of our ships at this point... that would seem like direct provocation to war, and Hez wants to fight Israel, not the US (because, as you said, they have some actual grievances... they are also crazy and don't seem to hold any moral ground in this mess). If they give the US an invitation to waltz into Lebanon, it would be suicide, I think.

But, maybe not.

[Cain]

I'd think Hezbollah's leadership would be smart enough to see the trap as well, but the grass-root pressure might in turn be a factor as well.  Alot of the new recruits they picked up after the last round of fighting with Israel are decidedly anti-American, and also somewhat Al-Qaeda influenced in grand strategy, which is predicated on attacking the US to make nearer enemies supported by them crumble.  Hezbollah should be able to keep their people under control, but I dont know that for certain.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'd think Hezbollah's leadership would be smart enough to see the trap as well, but the grass-root pressure might in turn be a factor as well.  Alot of the new recruits they picked up after the last round of fighting with Israel are decidedly anti-American, and also somewhat Al-Qaeda influenced in grand strategy, which is predicated on attacking the US to make nearer enemies supported by them crumble.  Hezbollah should be able to keep their people under control, but I dont know that for certain.

Very astute observation.