Simplistic Foreign Policy

April 4th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:
Leave a comment

Although Kevin Sullivan agrees that Bush’s foreign policy views are too simplistic, he chastises the far left nonetheless; aren’t they equally simplistic? Read his post; it’s a good read.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C Stanley
    April 4th, 2008 at 18:23
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Very good post. I’ve come to think that this is what is wrong with American politics today; it’s not that we’re overly polarized, it’s that both sides of the aisle are being represented by people with a grade school mentality. Instead of countering the simplistic and sometimes foolish arguments of one side with more logical and well constructed ideas, we get people who want to balance out the foolishness with ideas that are equally foolish as long as they think they’re exposing some weakness of their opponents. There’s almost no attempt to propose ideas or a course of action that makes any more sense than the status quo.

  2. Rudi666
    April 4th, 2008 at 18:48
    Reply | Quote | #2

    KS post doesn’t include this paragraph, which is very important.

    The Badr Organization is the military arm of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI previously known as SCIRI).  Now ISCI is closely aligned with Maliki government and is arguably the most significant player in the current central government.  In fact significant elements of the Badr Organization have been incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces.

    From Global Security:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia2.htm

    At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Baath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place. Afterwards, Al-Khoei went into exile.

    I wonder what happened to al-Khoei? al-Khoei’s exile was in London, not Qom or Tehran.

    Both sides over simplify the connections of Shia leadership. Guess who is related to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim wife?

  3. Kevin Sullivan
    April 4th, 2008 at 18:59
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Just as an aside, I rarely read the comments in posts praising me.  My ego can’t handle it. :)

    Rudi, I think the line you put in bold is pretty roundly understood in most circles (although you’re right, the stuff about al-Khoie is interesting). 

  4. Rudi666
    April 4th, 2008 at 20:02
    Reply | Quote | #4

    The al-Khoie stuff was ignored since his murder. Sadr was supposedly indicted for the murder, but nothing was done. Sadr is the easy villain for media and bloggers, but everyone in Iraq had a good motive for his murder. Even the Iranians…

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.