------------Original Message------------
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 12:15 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
Oh, this is too funny!
Realpolitik was the basis of foreign policy of the USA from the 1940s
to the 1990s.
The Neocons despised Realpolitik because it meant appeasement with the
Soviet Union,
peaceful co-existence, and cooperation. They demanded a foreign policy
based on ethics: the
USA never tolerates an evil country; the USA has a mission to destroy
evil countries. Thus
the Neocons came to power with W. Bush and launched their wars.
For the past five years, Lawrence has attacked Realpolitik. He has
supported and promoted
Neocon policy.
And now... he lectures me that Realpolitik is a proper policy for the
USA.
More than that, he writes:
> But we would also like the Sunnis who are most opposed to Iran to be
our allies against
> Iran.
Yesterday: "hardly plausible"
Today: "sensible tactics".
Lawrence is now supporting 9.11 jihadi.
How quickly he flipped. How suddenly he forgot his past positions. It
only took one day for
Lawrence to throw everything he believed into the memory hole. How good
he is at
doublethink.
Eastasia is our friend! Eurasia has always been our enemy! Long live
Oceania!
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
Andreas:
I don't believe you read Hersh's entire article -- much too long for
you. This is evidenced
further by your note below. Do you interact with Hersh, with Young, or
with me? No, of
course not -- way too much reading required for that; so you continue
building not upon any
of the three notes, but upon your original taunt, a statement not only
taken out of context
but plausibly disagreed with by the Lebanese Opinion Editor.
If you had actually read these notes, we might have a discussion about
realpolitik, and how
it is a continuation of the European "balance of power." The British
and Germans were both
very good at that. Actually, World War One could have been avoided had
the various nations
been more open about their treaties and commitments. It does no good
to swing over onto the
side of a weaker power if your potential enemy doesn't know it.
Now in regard to the Middle East, I mentioned that one of the reasons I
never took them
seriously before 9/11 was that they seemed too busy fighting amongst
themselves to ever want
to fight us. After 9/11 we took them seriously, but they have probably
never been that far
away from going back to the good old days of fighting amongst
themselves. From a
realpolitik standpoint we erred in applying our European approach to
the Middle East. When
those pesky Europeans fight they do it in grand style -- best keep them
away from each
other's military throats if at all possible, and we have managed to do
that for the most
part since WWII, but now that Militant Islam has discovered the joys of
attacking the West,
it serves no good purpose from a realpolitik standpoint to keep those
guys from each other's
throats. Let them go back to fighting amongst themselves and maybe
they'll leave us alone.
Hersh's article doesn't describe a clean realpolitik approach to the
Middle East, however.
From a desirability standpoint, yes, we would like the Iraqi Shiites to
gain control of
their government and remain our allies. But we would also like the
Sunnis who are most
opposed to Iran to be our allies against Iran.
Realpolitik works even if the warriors know about it. We supported
Saddam Hussein against
Iran because we considered him the lesser of two evils. We didn't
believe in his ambitions
and he knew it. He knew exactly why we supported him, but he didn't
care because he needed
our support. The same thing applies in the Middle East -- even in
Shiite Iraq, for example.
Neocons here in the US believed in the idealism of a Liberal Democratic
Iraq, but did the
Shiite Iraqis ever embrace that ideal? I don't think so. Nevertheless
they need US
support. They need it to survive, and they don't want to move so far
toward an antagonistic
Sharia-Law approach that they antagonize the US. They are well aware
that we are unhappy
with Iran for several reasons including Iran's support of the forces
opposing the US and
Iraqi forces in Iraq. So we could get by with supporting Shiite Iraq
and opposing Shiite
Iran, but where it becomes complicated is in accepting nations like
Saudi Arabia as our
allies against Iran. They don't oppose Iran for the same reasons we
do. They oppose them
because they hate Shi'ism. That is the part I think difficult to
manage.
Unfortunately, realpolitik won't help us with Olivier Roy's alienated
expatriate Muslims.
Roy, and after him Fukuyama, believes that they rather then national
Muslims are the real
Islamic threat. They function as paramilitary organizations and owe
allegiance to no Middle
Eastern nation. If they operated out of a Middle Eastern nation like
Afghanistan or Iran,
the do it for reasons of convenience and not allegiance. These guys
are still out there.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 10:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Lawrence, what do you say to the fact that the Bush White House is
now arming al
>> Qaeda-affiliated jihadi groups?
> On the face of it, it doesn't sound plausible.
Ah, so you admit it's plausible.
Note Lawrence's reply. Lawrence of Arabia doesn't immediately dismiss
as ludicrous or absurd
the idea that Bush is collaborating with Islamic jihadi. Instead,
Lawrence weakly says
"well... on the face of it..."
Lawrence realizes it is indeed plausible. It was these same Sunni Saudi
militants who
carried out 9.11, destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, but hey,
what's a little
misunderstanding among friends?
Bush is preparing for a war with Iran. Bush and Israel are trying to
provoke a general war
between Sunni and Shiite. He is gathering the Sunni countries, namely,
Egypt, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia, which are threatened by Shiite Iran, into a coalition.
Bush's tactic to
support the Sunni jihadi is a short-term move, done in order to annoy
Iran.
I wouldn't be surprised at all when we find out the US is training the
prisoners at
Guantanamo, arming them, and sending them out to wage new wars.
That's it, Lawrence. No more threat-of-militant-Islam from you. They
are your friends now.
You will now start cheering jihadi. Yesterday, you hated Leftists
because they supported
jihadi. Tomorrow, you'll hate Leftists because they are against the
jihadi.
This reminds me of something... ah, yes. The Communists. Remember in
the 1930s how the
Communists around the world fought against Hitler? And suddenly, there
was the Hitler-Stalin
Pact and Communists were dismayed to find they had to suddenly support
their new allies? And
then Hitler invaded the USSR and became the mortal enemy once again?
Whipsawed back and
forth.
That's Lawrence's situation. The enemy is suddenly his ally, who one
day will be enemy
again. Lawrence of clear principles and total certaincy has to switch
back and forth.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
