But, uh, doesn't this sort of assume that he's rational, and not the millenialist religious nut he is?

Nope. We wouldn't trying to pressure him with inflicting misery on his people. We'd be pressuring him with the prospect of his miserable people killing him.

And if he didn't bow to that, well, we keep it up until they DO kill his ass.

I found the part about Iran's win/win strategy -- either they'll have a war or a nuke -- more interesting. Quite frankly, I don't trust this author or this publication to be honest with me about whether sanctions really are preferable to a preemptive strike. Ask yourself this: under what circumstances would Loseweek ever counsel the use of force?

Nope. We wouldn't trying to pressure him with inflicting misery on his people. We'd be pressuring him with the prospect of his miserable people killing him.

Like the Iraqis did with Saddam.

But, uh, doesn't this sort of assume that he's rational

Yes, sanctions will only work if the powers feel the pinch. We saw in Saddam's case that he passed the suffering to the people, whom he brutally repressed to avoid a backlash. Iran may not react rationally, or they may imitate Saddam, who acted rationally, if despicably.

At least sanctions would be likely to cut down on their ability to finance terrorism.

We also saw, with Saddam, that there are plent of countries who see sanctions as a way to make money. on the downlow

Like the Iraqis did with Saddam.

Although, they did try, and might have succeeded had luck gone their way.

Not sanctions -- blockade.

Btw, Moon God, if you want to control how your links are dissected, START YOUR OWN BLOG.

Geez, what a concept, eh?

Iran has long claimed it needs nuclear capabilities to provide energy for its people. This article reports that "domestic demand for gasoline is 60 percent greater than the country's refining capacity. To keep up, the mullahs have to import more than 95,000 barrels a day." Even allowing them the slightest benefit of the doubt re their intentions (which I emphatically do not), would anyone really want Iran running even benign nuclear power plants for domestic energy needs? This article notes that Iran's "facilities for pumping and processing [gasoline] are in such a sorry state" that the second richest oil reserves in the Middle East cannot meet the needs of its own people, much less produce an income from export sales. Conclusion: If Iran cannot even maintain its gas refineries, it would surely build and run one shoddy nuclear operation -- whether for a bomb or for domestic energy needs. Yet another, albeit lesser, reason to keep them out of the nuclear game.

If the sanctions are real and in earnest, then, yes, it will topple the regime. Iranis are already alarmed that Ahmadinezhad is isolating Iran even more. If Iran can't sell its natural resources, the people will blame Ahmadinezhad for their unnecessary suffering. His attempts to stiffle dissent would make things even worse for him. However, if the sanctions are violated (by, I dunno, maybe Russia?), then it will only backfire.

The key is creating such a situation that the people will act violently in desperation against the regime. I don't have enough faith in the international community that they would institute true sanctions or blockades. Various states will violate them.

The best thing would be to quietly position aircraft carriers and other vessels close to Iran, loaded with missiles. We should make no announcement; we should not publicly issue any policy or plan; orders, standing and future, must be kept as restricted as possible. (No leaks, please!) Once Iran begins acting in any way funny (or a detonation is detected within Iran's borders), send the missiles away. The very presence of the vessels will inform the world what our policy is without us having to embroil ourself in useless international debates.

War - the way humans interact since the birth of humanity. It will only continue until our end. Any other perspective is utterly silly. We are not a peaceful species. Which is why I am so glad W is president. He understands this. We ought not to hesitate to use force when needed.

Good point, Pat. Excellent point, actually. We were uncomfortable with Soviet nuclear facilities (something about Chernobyl); we ought to be on guard regarding Irani facilities.

I'm sure this is an argument we can use with the Euros.
US: Okay, okay. Let us suppose the Iranis have good intentions.
EU: Just as we said! Glad you see the light.
US: What shape are Irani gas facilities in?
EU: Oh, very poor. Very, very poor. That's why they need nukes - we mean, nuclear energy solutions.
US: Seeing the state of their gas facilities, what state will their nuclear facilities be a few years from now?
EU: Er, um, ah...well...hmmmmm.
US: Exactly. So, we're agreed? UN invasion in a week?
EU: Darn Americans.

Yet another, albeit lesser, reason to keep them out of the nuclear game.

Or perhaps it would serve as justification for international intervention. In any case, I agree with Muslihoon - that was an excellent point.

I'd like to point out that would it not be far cheaper for Iran to build up plant capacity & drill more then it would be to build a nuke plant?

uh-huh, for electric needs, right.

He (and Newsweek) would always support sanctions over force, whether they could work or not

Yet another thing that cracks me up about the left. While sacntions were in place against Iraq, the lefties were whining about how "sanctions don't work", "sanctions never work", "sanctions only make the citizens more miserable", etc.

And when another option is tried, i.e. military force, they whine - louder.

So I guess we have to try The Third Way. Preemptive Surrender. They'll call it Diplomacy, of course.

Master tacticians, those lefties.

They're not anti-war, they're just on the other side.

Who cares if we get all the nuke sites? We should just bomb them until they do as we say. Destroying the mullahs ability to goven would slow their ability to create a bomb and weaken them. We bomb them every day with 10 sorties. We can afford that, they can't.

I don't care whether Iran's "democracy movement" likes us. They have their interests and we have ours. If Leeden's right, the Iranian's will have a weakened central government to topple. If he's wrong, well, to fucking bad, we keep bombing until the mullahs feel the pinch. Diplomacy by smart bomb. Those nukes will look a lot less interesting when the mullahs look at destroyed power centers and the loss of the ability to sell oil.

If China wants oil flow from those fields they better convince the mullahs to give up the bomb. The spice will not flow from Arrakis until Muad-dib (Dub-ya) says so.

Considering all of the weak knees who are involved in making the decisions right now. Sanctions will obviously be tried. That's of course if the decision makers can get past their "Now, now Mr. Iranian President, sir. You are being a very naughty boy" speeches. What then? Hopefully, the people of Iran will topple the regime. Personally, I like Muslihoon's idea. But, considering that the lefties here have the Democrats by the throat, who have President Bush by the balls, it won't fly. If a Democrat becomes President next election AND Iran is still being coddled while stirring his nuclear soup, we might as well pull out those old bomb shelter plans. Depressing? Just thinking around Iran right now is damn depressing.

scootran: Very cool use of "Dune".

Kerry/Edwards had a GREAT solution, that is, we provide gratis the enriched nuclear fuel to Iran, and take responsibility for storing the waste in our non-existent facilities (which facilities Kerry voted against). These ideas were so GOOD they nearly got Kerry/Edwards elected. Maybe next time.

Japan in 1940 was a net importer of oil, their economy DEPENDED on US imports. In an effort to pressure them to pull out of China, we cut 'em off. As you know, they didn't react quite as we had planned.

Bo, I take it, you are a fan of the rape of Manchuria.

LS, quite the opposite....my point is that Japan used the sanctions as an example to the population that the evil US was bullying them into submission and their only option was war.....and it worked. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt sanctions. Hell, they MIGHT work......I just doubt it very seriously. The last opportunity we had to maybe convince the Iranian Islamo-fascists that we won't play games with them was blown by jimmy carter.

An air assault followed by a complete blockade would work, I think. I agree that an air assault by itself wouldn't do the job, but if we do enough damage to the infrastructure and attrit their offensive forces -- airplanes, heavy armor, SAM batteries, ballistic missile bases -- then all we have to do is keep the cordon sanitaire tight, and they'll eventually have to capitulate. But achieving a blockade like this would not be simple -- the naval part is not hard, but securing the land borders (especially around Iraq) would be very difficult indeed.

Still -- what choice do we have? If we don't do something, the Israeli's are probably going to take it out of our hands. And we'll be blamed for helping them whether we do or not, so it gains us nothing if we don't help them.

Finally, I'm not convinced that an American attack will rally the people to the government. If we're careful to attack only the military infrastructure, leadership centers, and nuclear sites, then the casualty rate among civilians should be fairly low.

Sanctions might work but some nations still might be sending weapons or supplies to them maybe like france and germany

The atomic tar baby:
Iran should be very careful of what it wishes for.
It is now clear that NK has had nukes of some sort for over 5 or 6 years. What has NK done in that time? Nothing of significance, except to grow weaker in conventional military capability and see its economy weaken further.
Israel has had nukes for something over 30 years. Has Israel ever used nukes? Pakistan developed its nukes and then did what? Find itself making kissy face with the US, cooperating in the dismantling of its nuclear tech market, and having to rejoin the family of nations.
The US and USSR went about 40 years without using nukes. France has had nukes for many many years, and has done what militarily? China has nukes and has sat on a decades long strategy to conquer Taiwan, instaed of getting it bnack in an afternoon.
The point I am making is that Iran, even with its mad mullahs, may very well find itself building a very expensive and sticky tar baby. Far from being able to provide its islamofascists with a great jewish genocide, they are very likely to find themselves so caught up in a sticky mess of their own manufacture that we could see them effectively immobilized.
Remember: Iran is not getting many, if any new planes.
They are not building new tanks. They do not build helicopters. They have no effective navy to drive ours out of the Persian Gulf. They are instead pouring huge money into subsidizing fuel prices and in the bulding of nukes.
And don't miss the import of the level of subsidy: 10% of the GDP. Our total government in America is around 22% GDP. Imagine 40- 45% of the national budget going to fuel price subsidies. Think about what would not be getting funded, or just how high taxes would have to be to balance that.
I am not saying we should n't bomb them. I am not saying that they are not the exception and will use the bombs if they get them.
But I am saying that we should not take the threat at face value. There may be more room for strategery than we realize.....or the Iranians realize.

oif had only 50% jdams. over in three days..

now theyre talking about a country thats five times as big as iraq.
i say give it a year or two. new iranian pres is puppy picked by gerontocracy, the kids need a couple more years before we get everybody killed again.
we're improving our shit too, don't forget.

give cia a chance..

huinter, how many current members of the nuclear club have leaders who claim a direct line to god and/or say that god told them they should wipe another country of the map? I'm thinkin just Iran...

So say we target their oil and gas industries instead of the nuclear. Then a blockade. Crush their economy. Then send insurgents from Iraq into Iran. Turn-about is fair play.

Nope. We wouldn't trying to pressure him with inflicting misery on his people. We'd be pressuring him with the prospect of his miserable people killing him.

~ Like the Iraqis did with Saddam.

There is no 2nd Amendment in Iran.

The government has the guns. Unless the Armed Forces of Iran chose to follow the Romainian example, and turn on the ruling class, an uprising would be crushed as totally as the one in southern Iraq, circa 1991, as A-man noted.

I'm hoping the brightest and best people in Iran will stream across the border to a free and (hopefully one day) prosperous Iraq.

Hmmmmm. Thank you, Joe Mama. Never thought of that.

"Diplomacy by smart bomb." - I love this phrase! Up there with "Peace by Superior Firepower." And both are true.

Anytime people discuss oil, I am reminded of Dune. I so badly want to say, "The oil must flow!" but I don't think my liberal friends would appreciate it. If anything, they'll turn it against conservatives. ("See? Bush thinks he's the Padishah Emperor!")

Thank you, scootran!

without us having to embroil ourself in useless international debates.

This is foolish. The carnage in Iraq in "internationalized" by a kind of virtual senate representing the "interests" of capital. To be sure, absolutely none of these interests include an enthusiasm for "democracy." Iran knows this, has first hand experience with this terrible lie. Sanctions? War? Nothing short of genocide will pave the way to victory for "us." probably. and I note how some posters here desire mass murder of ragheads as erotic stimulation.

If W really wanted to be johnny appleseed of freedom he'd be ostentatious about assuring Iraqis the US is not an empire: no enduring bases, no corporate raiding of economy.

aint gonna happen.

on the wrong side of history, little brothers. wrong side.

Smell that? Someone cut loose a Chomsky in here.

no, sue, all I smell is wishful thinking.

freedom democracy. US. no one believes this about the US in the region.

Oh ergastronomicus, please do regale us with your tales of how the downtrodden proletariat will rise up, cast off the shackles of the bourgeois capitalist pigdogs, and create the long awaited worker's paradise. Then you can recount the glory, wonder, and awe of starving to death or (more mercifully) being executed for disagreeing with the People's Representative Dictator.

Now that's a mighty leap in your analysis. prole revolution? huh?

The only connecting idea in this thread is the base stupidity only US should have the bomb, and somehow death to israel is worse than "axis of evil."

cheers all around for our celebration of irony.

freedom democracy. US. no one believes this about the US in the region.

So what is your suggested response to Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability and their saber-rattling? To their near-term threat to Israel and mid-term threat to Europe? To their service as a rallying point for radical Islam?

But, untill you can show among so many things how the basic contradiction of enduring bases and economic "privatization" benefits Iraq democracy, then all of you only have your little hopes about W's greatness to cling to.

how the basic contradiction of enduring bases and economic "privatization" benefits Iraq democracy

I'm confused here - are you saying that the bases and privatization are contradicting, or that they both contradict democracy? And if so, how?

Iran is not source of 'islamism.' There's a very long history of hostility between sunni/shia arabs and persians. It would be a mistake to assume 'muslims' themselves are not victims of factionalization.

What should be done? The big problem is Bush has throttled US rep in the world. nobody trusts him. for good reasons. But, visavis Iran: only international pressure can respond to the "threat." Concessions must be made at the same time: US demilitarization in region, and nuclear disarmament of Israel, Pak, I, and move toward global disarmament. Also, US must assure Iraq end to privatization scam/scheme. Finally, real pressure on Israel to pull out of WB and end ghettoization of palestine.

for a start.

but we have bush. we're frucked.

"untill you can show among so many things how the basic contradiction of enduring bases and economic "privatization" benefits Iraq democracy"

You just stick to learning to tie your shoes, young man, then we will teach you these other things.

Privatization in Iraq is no more than the usual template used by finance capital to raid economies. plain & simple. I'd discuss this issue, later.

the bases: this is humiliating to Iraqis and "democracy" pretending to be one under occupation.

The last thing US wants in Iraq is democracy. This is obvious.

Sorry ergastularius, but that doesn't seem helpful or realistic. Israel, Pakistan and India are never going to relinquish their nuclear weapons - particularly while Jew-Muslim and Hindu-Muslim tensions persist (which you solution doesn't address). U.S. demilitarization can't happen for a decade. I haven't seen a summary of the privatization threat in Iraq - just anecdotal references here and there - do you have a good link that quantifies the problem? I'm not even going to get into the Israel/Palestine problem, except to say that your solution will not satisfy the Arab world.

the bases: this is humiliating to Iraqis and "democracy" pretending to be one under occupation.

Needn't be. We've had bases in non-humiliated countries for decades, with no effect on the countries' sovereignties. Right now the majority of Iraqis want us to stay, so the majority of the country is not chafing under the mythical yoke of US imperialism. Our "occupation" has to be the lamest in history: we've relinquished control of the government, worked very hard to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, and we're training their police and military forces as quickly as we can. Some humiliating threat to democracy.

I didn't say solutions are easy.

As a general condemnation of "unilateralism" read this: slash.autonomedia.org/analysis/03/05/12/1342259.shtml

And no, Habermas is not a communist. US cannot act morally as unilaterally acting hegemon. this is why bush is a disaster.

I'll find a mainstream analysis of privatization. I'm not going to ever link here to "leftist" research.

We've had bases in non-humiliated countries for decades, with no effect on the countries' sovereignties.

this too is ridiculous. Japan, Korea, Panama, Vietnam, Philippines, Huh?

Please read Chalmers Johnson's books.

ergastularius:
People don't trust the US - I call BS on that. They trust that when we mean business, we mean business. The US can cause any tin-pot dictator to wet his pants. Our capability is beyond what anyone can imagine. And I don't mean our military capability only. Everyone asks the US to get involved in their affairs. They all see America as a savior (even while hating the US). America is like a beacon of light in the darkness - and I know, because I have lived with these people who hate America with a burning rage but would sell their soul and family to be able to come here and make a life.

After the earthquakes in Pakistan, what so many people were asking was "What will the US do for us? What are they doing?" If they don't trust us, why would they want us to get involved? Why do people expect us to be the world's police and humanitarian provider? With some people I spoke with in Pakistan, the answer to every problem was the same: the US. Kashmir? Oh, America can solve it. Israel? Oh, America can solve it. Rising rice prices? Oh, America can solve it. If something isn't resolved, it's because America is being selfish and not helping the poor Pakistanis out.

And they have seen what we have done. We saved Kuwait. We did not make it a colony. We tried to save Somalia; and even during our attempts we did not make it a colony. We saved Iraq. We have not made it a colony. We helped topple the Soviet Union. And we did not make the former Soviet republics and states US colonies. Let us not forget that it was the US that basically rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II. Have you ever heard of that before? The victor actually doing something good for the defeated? Let us look back in history: what did the Romans do when they defeated the Judeans? Razed their cities, expelled their people, and salted their land. We have gone against millennia of history, where the pattern was always the same: colonize and incorporate the spoils. No. Instead, we do trade, we send aid, we send experts. We have had plenty of opportunities to colonize whatever we wanted. But we didn't.

On the other hand, wherever the British, French, or Arabs have gone, they've gone and stayed. And made a pretty mess, too. Israel-Palestine-Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the stupid borders of Africa, South America, Kashmir, Panjab, Bangladesh - the problems here were mainly European creations.

We establish institutions, and then we leave making sure experts remain so that the system can function properly. You don't give a man a fishing rod, explain once how it's used, and then disappear. Whenever we did disappear without long-term commitments, it has blow up in our face - literally, as the example of Afghanistan shows.

US not interested in democracy - total bovine excrement. I was enraged with American politicians and officials - especially Republican - with their incessant demands for democracy in Pakistan after Musharraf threw out Nawaz Sharif. (Did you know Pakistanis celebrated Sharif's departure? Did you know Pakistanis prefer a military government?) Civil rights are good; but "democracy" in Pakistan is virtually institutional suicide as it is hijacked and manipulated by various feudal lords, corrupt politicians, and terrorist-sympathizers. The religious faction of Pakistani politics were not a potent political force until Musharraf held elections under pressure from the US. Don't give me that "US not interested in democracy" garbage. If anything, the US is too interested in democracy and less interested in ensuring civil rights. (Newsflash: most of these backwards people believe democracy means "tyranny of the majority." Ask Pakistan's Ahmadis how well that's worked out.)

People on AoSHQ okay with genocide - You, sir, have crossed a line. Or confused us with LGF. I have seen people make outrageous comments only to be vociferously shouted down by regular posters and even by Ace. To paint us all as willing to massacre populations is infuriating.

As far as I'm concerned, conservatives (and conservative-friendly libertarians) are doing a heck of a better job standing up for women and oppressed people. Here, we talk about the suffering Irani people, the Shiites, the Kurds, the oppressed Sunnis, the hopeless Palestinians, the Jews, women under misogynistic systems, the unacceptable genocides of Darfur - where is the outcry from the Left? Those on the right detest the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Those on the right are even quite fair about corruption: I can't count how many times I have read conservative bloggers say that corrupt Republicans and Democrats ought to be punished. I don't see how liberals are so interested in bringing corrupt Democracts to justice.

After all, it was the conservatives who wanted to get rid of the genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein - while the liberals wanted more time. A man like him ought to have been taken out a long, long, long time ago. Where are your outcries against him as mass graves are still being found? Where is your righteous anger against him?

Your arguments I hear from others as well, and it makes my blood boil. Absolute dreck. Incomparable garbage. No connection with reality.

Set your glass house in order before throwing stones at us.

We may not be perfect, but we're doing far better than anyone else.

You keep uisng these words unilaterally acting hegemon... I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Japan and Korea seem to have recovered nicely. England, Germany, Italy, etc. don't seem to have sovereignty problems either. Germany is now whining about the US's plan to close bases there. Since Panama, Vietnam, and the Philippines no longer have bases, their sovereignty is also no longer at risk. Perhaps a more current example?

I may get to Chalmers Johnson's book some time, but I'm backed up on reading material.

Are you a student, geoff? If so, what're you studying?

As a start about the issue of privatization, read: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/#Orders

Order 39 and 81 are my favs.

Two points, ergastularius:

1. Those orders are good ideas. You might not have noticed, but capitalism and investment are good for countries.
2. The CPA isn't in charge any more, so it's a moot point anyhow. Iraq is now a sovereign democracy, and they'll choose what they think is good for them.

Are you a student, geoff? If so, what're you studying?

No, I majored in physics 25 years ago as an undergrad and then got a master's in ME (thermal & fluid sciences). Hoping to go back soon, though.

Classes are great! Sorry I assumed you were a student: usually students and academics are very much involved in lots of reading...but I wouldn't be surprised if people here read a lot. Quite knowledgeable and erudite folks.

What would you like to study when you go back?

We saved Kuwait. We did not make it a colony. We tried to save Somalia; and even during our attempts we did not make it a colony. We saved Iraq. We have not made it a colony. We helped topple the Soviet Union.

This is nonsense. I don't even know what Kuwait is, but a country etched in the sand by an english aristocrat.

If I could describe your analytical problem: you're a positivist. What is, is good. period.

and the normative cointent of your method: bring them to "heel" as ace says.

I don't know what point your trying to make about US charity.

as for nuke fantasies here. joeinyaddayadda: bomb em. etc.

bring them to heel.

I agree with SJKevin - unless I missed something, Order 39 allows foreign investors to bring money in and out of the country and invest in Iraqi concerns without penalty, but disallows purchase of real estate. We'd need an IP attorney to judge the merits of the revisions in Order 81, but the intent seems to be to protect foreign IP brought into the country. I'm missing any outrageous abuses of privatization here.

so it's a moot point anyhow. Iraq is now a sovereign democracy, and they'll choose what they think is good for them...

no. these are administrative laws already guiding invetment and IMF loans, etc. unlikely to be undone by constitution.

Kuwait being scratched in sand - how is this different from the borders of any other state? Even the US's borders are pretty arbitrary. The only solution would be to redraw borders worldwide, which will obviously never happen.

Bringing people to heel - Of course we need to bring them to heel. How else are we going to diffuse what is potentially a serious threat to millions of humans? We go in and save people from greater destruction. If people are acting in ways that destabilize the system, it is the hegemon's job to go in and deal with it. If the US weren't involved, the international state system that exists today would not exist. Better we prevail than them, because when we prevail, everyone benefits; when they prevail, only they benefit. The US is a very unique hegemon in this regard. We protect our interests but also emancipate, protect, and guard many others out of ideological conviction.

I read a couple of book reviews of the "Blowback" book by Chalmers Johnson. Seems like a combination of The Ugly American (which made quite an impression on me as a teen), and Chomsky (who made quite an impression on me in college). The thing the book reviews didn't mention was if Johnson looked at the military strategy development process - I would say from their comments and his conclusions that he didn't.

Habermas, Adorno, Lukacs, Chomsky, it's all the same bullshit over and over again. The Hegemon must be broken and the Other must prevail for there to be social justice and equality throughout the world, and the only ones who can see this are the Philosopher-Kings and their sycophants.

Of course, the realPhilosopher-Kings keep telling their sycophants that they too are Philosopher-Kings ("you young ones are the smartest generation so far!") but they will suffer the same fate as always.

Sorry I assumed you were a student

No problem - you just aroused pangs of jealousy, is all.

What would you like to study when you go back?

That's a problem - I like everything. Something like a PhD in Physics/MS in CS with a little EE/MBA in Finance would be a good start. My wife is finishing up her MBA in March, then it's my turn. Better make up my mind pretty quickly, I guess.

Of course, sanctions against Iran will work. Just ask Saddam, I'm sure he would laughingly endorse them. Of course, the sanctions will have to be administrated by the United Nations. They did such a stellar job in Iraq. One more thing, there must also be a 'oil for food' program to assure that the Iranian moppets don't starve and, yes, the UN can administrate that too. Boy, was that easy. We have nothing else to worry about. Excuse me, is that a mushroom cloud I see at the horizon?

no. these are administrative laws already guiding invetment and IMF loans, etc. unlikely to be undone by constitution.

Are you saying that there are legal or political barriers preventing the Iraqi government from modifying these policies if they find them unfavorable?

Fropm lexis law rev art.: 19 Conn. J. Int'l L. 445 (2004):

What will happen to these MNEs and other foreign business forces once a democratically elected Iraqi government is in place and the occupation is over looms large and remains highly questionable. For example, a key provision of Order 39 is that foreigners may sign leases for forty years. Presumably the CPA will withdraw within forty years and Iraq will be a sovereign state. 136 "Once a state has admitted an alien, [natural or legal,] into its territory or bestowed upon an alien particular substantive rights, that state has placed itself under certain international law obligations to respect those rights and must provide for their legal protection." 137 Thus, will the new sovereign Iraqi government be forced to provide legal protection for foreign corporations which signed leases during the occupation? If so, is Iraq bound by international law and international business obligations, despite what the electorate may prefer? These and other issues are sure to arise and will have to be addressed by the new Iraq sovereignty as well as the international community. "State succession is an area of great uncertainty and controversy." 138 Brownlie notes that following a change in sovereignty, "various issues may be raised in the context of municipal law, the destiny of the property of the ceding or former state, the continuity of the legal system, the status of private property rights, including rights deriving from contracts and concessions concluded under the former law, and nationality problems." 139

In the case of decolonization, the continuation of the pre-independence economic structure, which commonly involves extensive foreign ownership of major resources, would produce a situation in which political independence and formal sovereignty were not matched by a normal competence to regulate the national economy. 140 Another troubling aspect is that the new economic overhaul includes no provisions for social programs. In a nation with a fifty to sixty percent unemployment rate 141 and an infrastructure devastated by years of war and economic sanctions, 142 it is critically important to meet the social needs of the Iraqi people.

You've not read them, sue. obviously.

Chomsky diagnoses, that's all.

Habermas is internationalist.

adorno loved the beauty of humanity

lukacs was the first to nail doris day.

Thanks for the excerpt, but it doesn't do a good job of making the Orders seem particularly onerous. For example, the question of being bound by "international law and international business obligations" - aren't the majority of countries in a similar position?

lukacs was the first to nail doris day.

...establishing a hooter hegemony.

administrative orders like this inure certain instiututional arrangements. this is what is happening.

no. privatization is unlikely to be controverted except in aftermath of ignoble US retreat. also unlikely.

definitely read "blowback."

sue, read the negative dialectic tonight.

Thank you, Sue Dohnim.

I hate Chomsky. If we get rid of the Hegemon, the world will be in total chaos. And when the dust settles, it won't be pretty. The US is, comparatively, a very gentle, principled, and good hegemon. Any other hegemon, and it will be imperialism all over again. The US - despite its international interests - is certain not imperialistic or colonial. The world should thank us that we're the hegemon. The Other - well, the only way they can rise is through effort, responsibility, social reform, and the proper assistance from those able to provide it. The current trend of blaming all the problems on others, and demanding that they solve them, is ridiculous. I refuse to believe any society or even person is so utterly helpless that they cannot improve their own condition.

The best social justice and equality I have seen anywhere is in the US. And it's precisely because of civil liberties and our work ethic.

Isn't "Philosopher-King" just a nice way to say "enlightened tyrant"?

geoff:
Is there a book that has influenced you recently? I'm not going to touch Chomsky. I've been considering Rand.

"No problem - you just aroused pangs of jealousy, is all."

I hear ya. I'd like to go for grad studies. I love taking classes.

"That's a problem - I like everything."

Ah, you're a finance/science-type of person. I'm more of a social sciencies person. Easier to BS one's way out. ;-) Glad you're going to go, and good luck! American education - as biased at sometimes can be - is great. Think about it - you can be Dr. geoff, PhD. More weight to your comments!

I'm not going to touch Chomsky. I've been considering Rand.

oh brother.

not "touch" chomsky. how bold.

manufacturing consent is excellent

btw. read nietzsche before rand.

First off, fuck reading anything by Deconstructionist Critical Theory culture-destroying assholes. If I want to read meaningless bullshit, I'll read past the first sentence in any post you and your addlebrained friends write.

Second, fuck anyone who reads any Frankfurt School communist claptrap and takes it seriously.

Third, fuck Communists.

Fourth, fuck you. I hope you get what you want, the destruction of the U.S., just so you can suffer the true misery that will come from either of the two competing worldviews - Islamofascism or Communism. My only regret is that I wouldn't be around to see it.

Is there a book that has influenced you recently?

I don't consider myself particularly well-read, but (as people here can wearily attest) I liked the first third of George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics, where he talks about the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. I think the framework he establishes has merit, but his interpretation and application of the framework (last 2/3 of the book) is extremely biased (to the left).

I've been trying to read John Rawls' Political Liberalism so as to understand the philosophical underpinnings of part of the liberal view, but it knocks me out within 2 pages.

Ayn Rand is fun (although Atlas Shrugged gets to be very repetitive and pedantic) - she really gets you fired up to kick some butt in the free market.

Generally I tend to buy books by liberals so I can weigh their arguments and challenge my convictions. Wouldn't recommend them, though.

deconstructionist? huh?

see, ace. shit like this.

I hope you get what you want, the destruction of the U.S., just so you can suffer the true misery that will come from either of the two competing worldviews - Islamofascism or Communism

Ain't gonna happen, Sue, leftists are cowards and besides us conservatives have guns and know how to use them. As the prez said 'bring it on'.

"liberal" refers to enlightenment beliefs in improvement of humanity by reason.

that's all. but it's alot.

see, ace. shit like this.

Shut up, Commie.

"liberal" refers to enlightenment beliefs in improvement of humanity by reason.

That's the sense in which Rawls used it. For practical application and differentiation with "conservative," I prefer Lakoff's breakout. Because, stunningly, conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to the improvement of humanity by reason.

conservatives have guns and know how to use them.

stunningly, conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to the improvement of humanity by reason.

It has been my experience that leftists (what passes for liberal today) are incapable of a debate except on their grounds. There idea of enlightment is strictly defined on their terms and their tenets. i.e. you are enlightened if you do exactly as I have dictated.

Choadsky "diagnoses?"

I want a second opinion.

Ain't gonna happen, Sue, leftists are cowards

You're right of course, and I'll fight tooth and nail before I let Commies or Islamofascists take away everything I hold dear.

The leftists currently in high places (thanks Gramsci & Lukacs!) think that they can use the Islamofascists as a tool to help them destroy/nullify the U.S., then the leftists can destroy Islam the same way they've been destroying us for the past 60 years - culturally, from the inside.

They're fooling themselves, of course.

The bad thing is, they don't know that even if they (the leftists) win, they will still be worse off than they are today. There is no ubermensch to rule the world. There is only the same old Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc., etc.

geoff: That's interesting. I don't think I'd have the patience to read their arguments. I'd prefer reading those who have read it and their comments thereon. If something comes up I need help with, I'll be sure to remember and ask you.

I remember one person talking about Chomsky as if he were a prophet, of his books as if they were the Bible. (In that case, Ann Coulter is the Mother Goddess.) I've read some stuff he's written. Abominable. Would never touch him - his books, of course. I'd never let myself be in the same room as he may be in.

I'd skip Ayn Rand. Yeah, her take-down of socialism is great. But then, you already know that. Her writing is terrible, her characters are awful and unrealistic, her multi-page monologues are repetitive and unbearable, and you get beaten over the head with the same point over and over and over again without mercy. Decent ideas, terrible long-winded presentation. Ayn Rand is an awful awful author.

SJKEvin: would that make her a good indoctrinator?

SJKevin, I'll mildly disagree on Ayn Rand, keeping in mind that much of this is subjective. Yes, her characters aren't remotely realistic, and her notions of romantic relations are flat-out bizarre. But Rand herself never claimed to be a realist writer--quite the contrary, in fact. Her critique of the mindset behind socialism and much "progressive" thinking is dead-on, IMHO. And my Significant Other, who grew up in the Soviet Union, thinks We the Living is one of the best novels ever on the essential dishonesty of Russian communism.

Like I said, it's a subjective call. Personally I enjoy Rand's novels, but a lot of people don't. OTOH, Tom Clancy doesn't do a thing for me. No accounting for tastes.

I don't understand how any reasonable, intelligent person could take Chomsky seriously. Here's a guy, a resident of America, who makes a lot of money by writing books explaining the evils of capitalist societies, particularly America.

Reading and agreeing with Chomsky is like agreeing with a 500 lb man lecturing others about their diets while stuffing his face with pizza and donuts.

Noam Chomsky is either an unhinged moonbat or a genius laughing all the way to the bank as he cashes his checks from his booksales. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Just like Disney gets a brand new crop of three year olds to buy its magic kingdom crap every year, Chomsky gets a new freshman class to buy his.

Chomsky gets a new freshman class to buy his.

"You young ones are the smartest generation so far!"

Bart, I'd go with the former. Hate is a narcotic.

I haven't read many books on communism, but one of my favorites is Koba The Dread: Laughter And The 20 Million, by Martin Amis. Yes, Martin Amis is a twit, but this book is excellent. I highly recommend it, although the bizarre writing style may not be for everyone.

"We wouldn't trying to pressure him with inflicting misery on his people. We'd be pressuring him with the prospect of his miserable people killing him.

"And if he didn't bow to that, well, we keep it up until they DO kill his ass."

After they've already been ground down by 25 years of subjugation to the mullahs, I don't think we'll make the people better organized and more active by grinding them down economically. If their children are hungry, the Iranians will busy themselves trying to feed their children and will become even more inert, divided, and dependent, if that's possible. The case of Iraq shows that the rulers keep the best for themselves under sanctions, that friends of the regime undercut the sanctions, and that the people don't rise up. The people don't rise up.

Sanctions and other sorts of tit-for-tat are just the means by which we've let things slide to this point. Moreover, even the wars we've conducted indicate to our enemies that we don't have the heart for anything other than hugely expensive wars directed at regime change. They see we're still tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they draw confidence from the opinion that we don't have the right combination of will and means to come after them. The defiance in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., show that our two victories so far have not impressed our enemies. They've recovered from their shock and awe, if they ever had any. As long as we remain so self-restrained, our enemies will tell themselves we don't have anything. But we can destroy their confidence in our weakness with a single stroke of execution. Indeed, if Kabul were already a glassy crater, I think we wouldn't be talking about what to do about Iran.

Kevin, then how do Noam and his fans deal with the hypocrisy?

Am I wrong about calling Chomsky hypocritical?

All the bookstores in Harvard Square in Cambridge showcase Chomsky's books in their windows. His readership is largely students of ivy league schools. These aren't poor black children reading his books. These young adults, mostly, come from affluent families or they are the children of educated proffessionals (presumably earning a high salary).

So is it hate, as you say, or guilt perhaps, that causes Chomsky and his followers to ignore the obvious conflict in pointing their fingers at people doing the same exact thing as them?

"Reconcile" is the word I wanted to use. Shoot, I swear I'm getting stupider and stupider everyday. I can hardly remember how to spell my own name.

Kevin, then how do Noam and his fans deal with the hypocrisy?

They probably don't see it as hypocrisy. They're forced to work within the system as it exists, to change/destroy it from within.

"All the bookstores in Harvard Square in Cambridge showcase Chomsky's books in their windows. His readership is largely students of ivy league schools."

Here we are in the United States, living in an era of unprecedented prosperity and political, economic and personal freedom, with a better quality of life than ever before.

And what do so of the most gifted and lucky members of our society do? Walk around like Chicken Little bemoaning, well, everything, without a smile on their lips or in their eyes or in their heart because they've chosen an intellectual diet of Chomsky et al, that's the equivalent of junk food - superficially attractive in some ways, but actually rubbish.

Well, in the end, all I can say is that:

"One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the poor fools".

I sure miss the bookstores in Harvard Square. And Herrell's Ice Cream. And Legal Seafoods (Kendall Square, I know).

I'm not convinced, Kevin, that Noam is isn't churning out books solely for the bacon.

His work targets what most young people are striving for: rejection of the establishment authority, new independence, and a "better" way to do things.

We all went through this phase in our lives where we thought our parents were stupid. As we got older and experienced the real world, our feelings changed. Of course some never outgrow or mature past this stage. Those people become college professors or career students. They choose to stay in the place where they have peaked in maturity, ethics, and ideology. Noam simply caters to his audience. And builds his bank account. Only in America...

P.S. Herrel's Ice Cream on "the Ave," Comm Ave in Brighton is the reason I never buy ice cream that isn't in a sealed package. I had quite enough of the disgruntled, brooding, black nail polish wearing, dirt under his/her fingernails, greasy haired, tattooed, multiple-pierced, hate their jobs, and rides a skateboard to work asshole.