« Detainee Interrogation Compromise Roundup | Main | Clinton Meltdown Over Failure To Capture Bin Laden »

The White Man's Burden, Part V: Who's Next, or Where Do We Go From Here?

Where Do We Go From Here?


Where do we go from here?
Where do we go from here?
The battle's done,
And we kind of won
So we sound our victory cheer
Where do we go from here?

Why is the path unclear?
When we know home is near
Understand
We'll go hand in hand
But we'll walk alone in fear
Tell me
Where do we go from here?

When does "THE END" appear?
When do the trumpets cheer?
The curtains close
On a kiss god knows
We can tell the end is near
Where do we go from here?

-- Joss Whedon, "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," "Once More With Feeling" Soundtrack

Life isn't fiction. Reality isn't nice and tidy. "Stories" seldom have clean endings; as one series of events winds down, others tend to ramp up, fizzle out, or go merrily on utterly on their own. And while events like wars often have formal ending dates, the post-war efforts can take years, if not decades.

And in the time of war, unpleasant decisions have to be made. As I said earlier, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" might be a good short-term solution, but historically it has often been a case of today's ally of convenience becomes tomorrow's foe. It happened with the Soviet Union, with Iran, and with Iraq, just to name three examples.

This is not to say that those choices were necessarily wrong ones. In each case, a more imminent threat was being countered. Allying with the Soviets against the Nazis kept Hitler busy on his eastern front. Backing the Shah of Iran not only stymied the radical Muslims for years, but kept the Soviets from gaining access to the Persian Gulf. And helping Saddam in his fight with Iran was a bit of "payback" for their actions against us, as well as providing another check on radical Islam.

But in each case, we would have been wise to keep a close eye on them. As Winston Churchill put it, nations have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, just permanent interests. Hell, for our incredibly close ties to England, we have had our share of tensions. During the 20's, there were rumors of a potential conflict, and leading up to World War II Germany had its share of American sympathizers.

So, who among our current allies should we also be eying as future enemies? In theory, all of them. Practically speaking, though, it's a tough call.

England: with Tony Blair announcing his retirement in a year or so, there is a distinct possibility of his successor, to quote one of his predecessors, "going wobbly." I don't see England actually opposing the US, but their staunch support could start rapidly evaporating.

Australia: Again, I don't see that happening, either. I have a tremendous amount of affection for the Aussies, and I'm hardly unique. They remind me of us in the 19th century or so, when we were still young and rowdy.

Israel: Not likely to become an enemy per se. They are far too dependent on our good will, and we are one of their best friends in the world. (Not that there's much comparison for that category.) They are far more likely to give us "borrowed trouble," as we often get the blame for their perceived sins.

Pakistan: a troubling case. President Musharraf has been a fair ally, but he's largely motivated by self-preservation. If the circumstances change where he sees his regime's best chances for survival involve turning against the US, I think it would be a distinct possibility. There's also the chance that he could have his government overthrown from under him, and then at that point we'll be faced with an Islamist state that has nuclear weapons.

India: Again, not very likely. India is the world's largest democracy, and the Islamist elements are vastly outnumbered. India is also developing more and more economic ties with the US, so I think they're fairly safe.

Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact nations: they spent far too many decades enslaved to the Soviet Union. They've seen what totalitarianism has to offer, and they also saw what the United States achieved while free. They might not quite get the hang of this democracy thing, but they're giving it the best they can.

China: an odd case. Openly rivals, they make no bones about orienting (sorry) their military posture towards countering us. They don't so much want to defeat us, but supplant our influence in the Pacific Rim and, eventually, the world. They are focusing right now on doing so economically, maintaining cordial relations with us while they undercut our economic power -- and we seem content to let them. They aren't ready to challenge us openly, but they don't mind if we get ourselves all worked up over trouble spots like North Korea. They are also content on letting us take on the lion's share of the fight against Islamist terrorism, but should they make the mistake of too openly challenging the Dragon, I believe we'll see a response that will make Tienanmen Square look like a kindergarten graduation ceremony.

France: a distinct possibility. I've read a couple of technothrillers that revolved around a resurgent France (including Larry Bond and Patrick Larkin's "Cauldron," which featured an expansionist France-Germany axis in a post-NATO world), and considering how much of France's foreign policy seems to revolve around "let's do whatever will piss off America the most," I think that the French could become open adversaries of ours.

Against the possibility, however, weighs one overwhelming fact: The French are... um... well... how can I put this delicately?

I can't. They're FRENCH.

The idea of France forming a major threat to anything is simply inconceivable. They haven't been a credibly military power in well over half a century. It's been merely their insufferable arrogance and the collective manners of the rest of the world that has let them preserve their delusions of grandeur, to continue to pretend they have any real relevance in this modern world.

No, I really don't think that we can see who might be our next enemy. In World War II, it was easy - we'd opposed the Soviets for so long before the war, the big adjustment was in putting that on hold for the duration of the war. The best advice I can think to offer is this: watch all of our allies closely for signs of "going wobbly," and support them as best we can.

Because the story never really ends.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The White Man's Burden, Part V: Who's Next, or Where Do We Go From Here?:

» The Thunder Run linked with The White Man's Burden...

Comments (29)

You should provide links to... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

You should provide links to the previous installments, the ones not accessible on the main page, so people can take it in as a whole or refer to the earlier installments.

One thing I like to keep in... (Below threshold)
jdubious:

One thing I like to keep in mind is this:

China, and to a lesser extent, France and Germany have potentially powerful economies. China's productive capacity is immense, and will grow, and France and Germany have lots of high-end knowhow and a fair amount of venture capital lying around.

But not one of those countries knows anything, not really, about making a buck. They don't really know how to run free markets. They don't know how to invest wisely. (There are estimates that 40% of the loans the chinese have made, underwritten by OUR debt, are bad, and being covered up/extended. Teehee.) And in China's case, they don't know how to handle money. In fact, nobody, except the private sector British (and they invented the whole thing) does it better than we do.

I'm not scared of economic competition from these chumps. The Japanese, now, are different. They may have learned from taking it in the neck in the late 80's-early 90's, and they might be on the way back sometime soon.

You ask, "Where do we go fr... (Below threshold)
Malibu Stacy:

You ask, "Where do we go from here?" (and I presume you mean in the WOT) and confine your assessment of future enemies to a list of current allies. That reminds me of the old joke about the guy who was searching for a lost quarter under a lamppost that was nowhere near the place where the coin was dropped: "But the light's better here."

In reply to your musical question, I give you a musical answer:

Show me the way to the next whisky bar
Oh, don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
Show me the way to the next whisky bar
Oh, don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
For if we don't find the next whisky bar
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you
I tell you
I tell you we must die

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say say good-bye
We've lost our good old mamma
And must have whisky
Oh, you know why.

Show me the way to the next pretty girl
Oh, don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
Show me the way to the next pretty girl
Oh don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
For if we don't find the next pretty girl
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you
I tell you
I tell you we must die

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say good-bye
We've lost our good old mamma
And must have a girl
Oh, you know why.

Show me the way to the next little dollar
Oh, don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
Show me the way to the next little dollar
Oh, don't ask why, oh, don't ask why
For if we don't find the next little dollar
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you
I tell you
I tell you we must die

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say good-bye
We've lost our good old mamma
And must have dollars
Oh, you know why.

--Bertolt Brecht/Kurt Weill, Mahagonny

Jay,I'd beg to dif... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Jay,

I'd beg to differ on the French not being a credible miltary power in well over a half century. They haven't been a credible military power since Waterloo.

I fart in your general dire... (Below threshold)
Frenchie:

I fart in your general direction, you silly american...

FYI, Operation Barbarossa s... (Below threshold)
Desi:

FYI, Operation Barbarossa started before the United States got involved in WW2.

Hitler commenced the invasion of the USSR in June 1941. Stalin ignored his own generals' intelligence (and often sent them to Siberia for telling him that Hitler was about to invade) for a while before. Pearl Harbor was on 12/7/1941, 6 months after Germany and USSR were at war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

They remind me of us in ... (Below threshold)
Desi:

They remind me of us in the 19th century or so, when we were still young and rowdy.

I know you mean this with the best of intentions. But surely you understand why those of us who are not-white find offense to statements like these?

Lynching, anti-chinese immigration laws, Jim Crow and Australia's whites only policy (which was in effect until 1973) are what come to mind in context of youth and rowdiness.

I love Aussies too, and Americans.

Some comments are just too ... (Below threshold)

Some comments are just too stupid to bother refuting.

I'm not worried about France as long as the French (i.e. post-Christian, ethnically French) are in control, but if the French cave in completely to the Isla- er, "disgruntled youth", then France could become troublesome real fast.

I know you mean t... (Below threshold)
Mike:
I know you mean this with the best of intentions. But surely you understand why those of us who are not-white find offense to statements like these?

I know you meant this with the best of intentions. But surely you understand that the items you cited (Lynching, anti-chinese immigration laws, Jim Crow laws) were produced by people who were white and NOT by white people. Surely you can understand why white people who weren't part of the aforementioned actions would be offended by your broad brush comments.

"Backing the Shah of Ira... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Backing the Shah of Iran not only stymied the radical Muslims for years..." -- Jay Tea

You conservatives in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a military dictatorship, complete with secret police (Savak). The secular government you overthrew was a bit too liberal for you, and, of course, the wishes of the Iranian people were of no consequence to you. Then you wonder why the Iranians hate us.

And why they showed their disdain for us by placing Kohmeini, a radical opponent of all things Western, as their supreme ruler.

Foresight, conservatives, and respect for others from other nations. Try having at least a little of each on occasion.

Desi, You forget lend/lease... (Below threshold)
chad:

Desi, You forget lend/lease, and the material support we gave the soviets in the early days of WWII, before we were an actual combatant. We gave the soviets thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, trucks, and other military supplies. They don't like to admit it, but without our help (materially) they may not have survived the first german push. That's debatable, but it would've been a much closer thing. The T-34 was a great tank for it's day, but they didn't have the #s to really push the germans back until after Moscow was saved.

urely you can understand... (Below threshold)
Desi:

urely you can understand why white people who weren't part of the aforementioned actions would be offended by your broad brush comments.

Point taken. Fair enough. My apologies.

ChadI take your wo... (Below threshold)
Desi:

Chad

I take your word for it. My comments were based on a book I recently finished reading: Stalin

I didn't recall much about American armaments being sent to Stalin. But I recalled very clearly how incompetent the communist decision making apparatus was. When confronted with direct evidence of German aggression in Soviet territory, Stalin was more apt to shoot his generals than make decisions.

That the USSR survived as long as it did is a miracle.

"You conservatives in th... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

"You conservatives in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a military dictatorship, complete with secret police (Savak). The secular government you overthrew was a bit too liberal for you, and, of course, the wishes of the Iranian people were of no consequence to you. Then you wonder why the Iranians hate us.

Correct; true; absolutely. You got it right, Herman. Now prepare to be vilified and slandered. “A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy,” said George Savile, first Marquess of Halifax. I would add that the last guy who tried it was crucified.

You're in very good company.

Reagan supported the Mujahe... (Below threshold)
Desi:

Reagan supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, ISI in Pakistan, which GHW Bush supported, until the Soviets left.

At which time so did he. The result was a huge vacuum and countless Islamic lunatics armed to the teeth, pissed off with the West and cocky after having defeated the USSR.

Americans are living with the ramifications of that flawed policy. Well, so has South Asia, but that's a different.

So, Jay, it that it? The gr... (Below threshold)
cat:

So, Jay, it that it? The great quintet of sales clerk wisdom, proclaimed with such fanfare at the beginning of the week, ends like this... with a whimper? The climactic conclusion of this great thesis, encompassing the grand trends of history and the future of mankind, so important that it is serialized... "some of our friends might go wobbly on us"?

"Our friends" including England? If you don't even know the name of your closest ally, what hope can you have of ever understanding the rest of the world you want to rule? There is indeed a soccer team that goes by the name of England, but there is no such country.

Of course, the real climax was "The White Man's Burden, Part IV", labelled in suitably Important Roman Numerals, where you lose your last tenuous grip on reality.

I have a challenge for you, Jay. Go to Iraq.

Spend a few weeks there and travel around - without spending all your time in the Green Zone. Walk around the cities without bodyguards. See the sights. Meet the people. Because if you cannot do this in the cornerstone of your imperial dream, then your entire philosophy is bankrupt - no more than fantasies imagined by a delusional megalomaniac. I won't go there because I know I would be killed. But you are different. You're bringing democracy to the country. You're taking on the White Man's Burden. You have a duty to go there and prove firsthand that those who think you're mad are wrong... that this really can be a true example to the region of what others could and should become. I know you can't afford to do this, but I'm sure Wizbang readers will chip in to help you prove such an important truth.

Of course, if you do you will die - and I don't really wish that on anyone.

Things in Iraq are going from bad to worse - and then worse again:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1696153.ece
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-letter20sep20,1,226790.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

Three thousand dead every month. Twelve 9/11s a year. No wonder the "savages" are ungrateful. You have not eliminated a sponsor of terrorism. You've built a massive factory that turns out terrorists by the thousands.

Your descriptions of history display pitiful ignorance and/or careless (or careful) selectivity. The English-speaking colonialists left good legacies, while the French left disasters. Your examples? Vietnam and the Ivory Coast. Well, how about Burma and Zimbabwe?

The only true foundation of British imperialism was greed. The same was true of the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians and every other nation that committed genocide in the name of God, morality and progress.

But wait! The British created great successes! Even Ghandi was grateful! No. Ghandi was polite. He countered violence with peace, anger with compassion - but he always resisted the invader.

But look at Australia - demonstrable proof of the superiority of anglo-imperialism! Australia was built on genocide and ethnic cleansing. Its original inhabitants were systematically driven from the land they had lived on for millennia and hunted for sport. Even after the holocaust, the government continued its racial breeding programs - trying to eliminate any visible traces of defective aboriginal genes, while stealing pure white children from poor and vulnerable white communities in Britain.

And Ireland! It took the Irish centuries of war and rebellion to finally drive the British out and get most of their country back. Their success now is despite British imperialism, not because of it. Many of them are now your compatriots because the British government and colonialist landowners let a million people die during the potato famine, while exporting quantities of grain that could have fed every single man, woman and child who starved to death. That the Irish have achieved so much is a testament to their courage and determination, and has nothing to do with any mythical benevolence of their former subjugators.

You claim that your imperialism is different - that you want the colonies to be independent. That has never been true and it is not true now. From the time of Monroe, the US has sought only nominal independence for its colonies. At first, US hegemony was sought only in the Americas. Then, the Dulles brothers extended the Monroe Doctrine and Rooseveldt Corollary to Iran. "My enemy's enemy is my friend"? Mossadeq was never your enemy. Neither was the Shah. Mossadeq only wanted justice for his country and people - an end to British theft of Iraninan oil. The Shah was your puppet who gave the British back their imperial spoils. Before you destroyed their democratic leader and installed a murderous torturing dictator, the Iranians had great respect for the United States. Afterwards, they hated you. And while most Americans are blissfully ignorant of their government's shameful behavior, the Iranians never forgot. They still haven't.

The "independence" you speak of is meaningless. Economically, your colonies are enslaved - buried in debt deliberately lent to corrupt dictators and false democrats in such large amounts it can never be repaid. Your "aid" comes in the form of loans, 90% of which must be paid to American companies and buying American goods, destroying domestic industries and putting local people out of work. Your corporations become more powerful than governments - and have played active roles in the overthrow of democracies. Guatemala and Chile to name just two. The new puppets commit atrocities, business is good and the poor get poorer.

The enormous power of economic control, rather than military, is the real reason so many in the establishment oppose Bush and Cheney. The old model worked so well. Now you have spent $316 billion on your war in Iraq, with no end in sight. But even Bush's opponents fail to realize that the old model is losing its power. Latin Americans have had enough of the destruction you have wreaked on their economies and are freeing themselves from the IMF that you dominate.

Just at the moment when you are making your great dash for total control and believe yourselves to be so omnipotent, in reality you are being quietly supplanted. Chavez might oppose you loudly and with great bombast, but others are walking more lightly and will end up leaving you behind. You have a choice: work with them in peaceful cooperation for the benefit of all, or continue your misguided efforts to bully them into submission.

The first path can lead to hope and prosperity. The second will inevitably lead to more death - and to your eventual collapse.

But it's the second disastrous path that you have chosen, in the delusion that it leads to "Victory". Your leaders whip up fear and hatred to persuade their subjects that only conquest will save them - in much the same way that 20th century dictators did.

Throughout the chequered history of the United States, their have been many idealists whose influence has helped build a great nation. But there has also been genocide, slavery and imperial war. If you don't wake up from your hegemonic dream soon, you will find it is too late.

Next enemy? C'mon...everybo... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Next enemy? C'mon...everybody here knows it is Iran..
There is no doubt, based on real intelligence that Iran is a threat to US and of course Israel..The only chance we have of survival is a pre-emptive naval and air strike on what we know to be Nuke and WMD sites...
There is no doubt that we cannot just accomplish stratigic strikes that will be effective, but once we attack, the freedon seeking Iranians will rise up and overthrow their Islamofacist idiot leader..
Our Navy will start to deploy the first week in October..that will send a message that we are serious...we will give the leadership in Iran one last chance to do the right thing before November 7th...if they refuse we have no choice but for our President to protect us and attack without congressional approval(after all they will be in recess)
We have a right to be afraid of Iran...
However, if we can't trust our President to do the right thing...who can we trust?

You conservatives in the... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You conservatives in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a military dictatorship, complete with secret police (Savak).

Factually incorrect. It was a Constitutional monarchy and the Shah always had the power to dismiss the PM --- and he dismissed Mossadegh more than once to begin with. It's not like we ended a democracy as no real democracy existed. It was a monarchy.

Mossadegh's refusal to step down when the Shah requested it was actually quite illegal.
-=Mike

So the UK, by your definiti... (Below threshold)
Desi:

So the UK, by your definition is also not a democracy, since the head of state is QE2. If she asked Blair to leave, should he?

Thankfully your definition is incomplete. The monarch in a constitutional monarchy is nominally the head of state, but the head of government, as in the UK, is the Prime Minister.

Mossadegh was indeed democratically elected, and he was indeed ousted -- orchestrated by Kermit Roosevelt.

"...the Shah always had the... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"...the Shah always had the power to dismiss the PM" -- MikeSC

Not according to www.iranian.com

"While we're on the subject of the 1906 constitution, why not also point out that the shah ... could not legally remove the prime minister." (see http://www.iranian.com/Books/2003/September/CIA/index2.html )

"On 28 April 1951 the Majlis [Iranian legislature] named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12." (Wikipedia). Might also want to point out that the Iranian people never elected the Shah. That is to say, given the existence of a parliament, he has no moral authority on which to rule.

"On 28 April 1951 the Ma... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"On 28 April 1951 the Majlis [Iranian legislature] named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12." (Wikipedia). Might also want to point out that the Iranian people never elected the Shah. That is to say, given the existence of a parliament, he has no moral authority on which to rule.

The PM wasn't elected, either. Might want to read the piece you linked to.

The Shah appointed the PM and the legislature approved of it.

There was no "overturning" of an election.

It should ALSO be noted that one of the first acts of the mullahs --- was to remove Mossadegh's name from a street and to block his village off so people couldn't mourn at his grave. So, no, he's not somebody Iran has ever rallied around nor did the mullahs take power to avenge him.
-=Mike

We need to put alot of effo... (Below threshold)
jm:

We need to put alot of effort into building relations with India. They are the best bet to help counter any Chinese aggression, and if anyone on that list goes wobbly, it will be Pakistan, and soon probably. India is in the best position to counter them too.

Wizbang, are you a homosexu... (Below threshold)
Kirk:

Wizbang, are you a homosexual?

Agreed with jm. India is a ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Agreed with jm. India is a bulwark and we need to help them out as much as humanly possible.
-=Mike

"The PM wasn't elected, eit... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"The PM wasn't elected, either. Might want to read the piece you linked to." -- MikeSC

The Iranian legislature voted to enable Mossedegh to become PM. No Iranian ever voted for the Shah to become King.

MikeSC, if you had been living, say, in the year 1776, say, in certain British North America colonies, would you have told the Revolutionaries: "Pay no heed to Mr. Paine!! We live in a monarchy and must obey the British King and British Parliament, though they rule without our consent!"?

The American revolutionaries kicked out the British. Mossedegh tried to kick out the Shah, but instead got overthrown by a U.S.-British coup.

The Shah of Iran had just as much moral legitimacy to rule as did King George: that is to say, he had none.

The guy you conservatives overthrew was Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. A guy who met with cheering crowds in Philadelphia when he came to visit the U.S. during the Truman Administration. A guy Truman himself liked. A guy who had the audacity to demand that Iran, and not Britain, should get most of the benefits from Iran's oil.

Writing in the International Journal of Middle East Studies (1987) the historian Mark J. Gasiorowski had this to say about the effects of your 1953 coup, conservatives:

"In retrospect, the United States-sponsored coup d'etat in Iran of August 19, 1953, has emerged as a critical event in postwar world history. The government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, which was ousted in the coup, was the last popular, democratically oriented government to hold office in Iran. The regime replacing it was a dictatorship that suppressed all forms of popular political activity, producing tensions that contributed greatly to the 1978-1979 Iranian revolution. If Mosaddeq had not been overthrown, the revolution might not have occurred. …"

The Iranian legislature ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The Iranian legislature voted to enable Mossedegh to become PM. No Iranian ever voted for the Shah to become King.

You mean Iran WASN'T a democracy?

Odd, that's exactly what I said.

MikeSC, if you had been living, say, in the year 1776, say, in certain British North America colonies, would you have told the Revolutionaries: "Pay no heed to Mr. Paine!! We live in a monarchy and must obey the British King and British Parliament, though they rule without our consent!"?

Seeing as how Mossadegh didn't attempt to remove the Shah from power, you're comparing apples and Volkswagens.

That being said --- the founding Fathers were not delusional enough to believe that what they were doing was not treason against the crown. They felt the crown's actions justified their actions.

And they were quite correct.

Mossedegh tried to kick out the Shah, but instead got overthrown by a U.S.-British coup.

That, again, is 100% incorrect. He made no attempt to remove the Shah.

You know, since he COULDN'T and all.

And he was removed as PM before as well.

The Shah of Iran had just as much moral legitimacy to rule as did King George: that is to say, he had none.

Didn't argue the Shah had moral legitimacy. By the same token, neither did Mossadegh. Nobody in Iranian history has really had moral legitimacy to rule.

You know --- that whole utter lack of democracy thing.

The guy you conservatives overthrew was Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951.

Time's Man of the Year isn't a compliment. Simply states he was news-worthy. Time itself says that.

A guy who met with cheering crowds in Philadelphia when he came to visit the U.S. during the Truman Administration.

Goodie for him. Castro had cheering crowds in NYC early in his tenure.

A guy Truman himself liked. A guy who had the audacity to demand that Iran, and not Britain, should get most of the benefits from Iran's oil.

More precisely --- he demanded that all of the money Britain spent to build refineries would be taken from them.

"In retrospect, the United States-sponsored coup d'etat in Iran of August 19, 1953, has emerged as a critical event in postwar world history. The government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, which was ousted in the coup, was the last popular, democratically oriented government to hold office in Iran.

Except he was appointed by the Shah (or, in simple terms, HE WASN'T DEMOCRATICALLY ORIENTED). If an "expert" doesn't get BASIC underpinnings of the story, his entire premise is faulty.

The regime replacing it was a dictatorship that suppressed all forms of popular political activity, producing tensions that contributed greatly to the 1978-1979 Iranian revolution. If Mosaddeq had not been overthrown, the revolution might not have occurred. …"

Seeing as how the revolutionaries LOATHED him --- that's what is termed as "wishful thinking".
-=Mike

So the UK, by your defin... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

So the UK, by your definition is also not a democracy, since the head of state is QE2. If she asked Blair to leave, should he?

The Queen has the right to dissolve parliament at anytime, so, yes, if she asked him to leave, he should. It doesn't mean she is going to, though. And, by definition, the UK is a constitutional monarchy...so you are correct on both counts.

Is Wizbang a homosexual

Why, yes, but not just any ordinary poofter...like a VIKING!

jdubious,While the... (Below threshold)
Matthias:

jdubious,

While the French are good at haute couture and parfums, they are not all that high-tech as you would presume. The Germans, unfortunately, got involved with the French (der Kanzler before Angela Merkel--he was such a butt-head to America that I can't remember his name) got lured by Chirac into a lot of cheek-kissing and America-bashing thinking that their one aircraft carrier (now in mothballs) was going to make them a force to be reckoned with.

The French and the Brits do not belong on the permanent Security Council in the UN--maybe the Japanese, the Indians and the Germans. This would reflect true geopolitical power and help the Japanese assume a world leadership role. I suppose the old Axis prejudice still exists. Unfortunately, there is negative population growth in all these countries.

I do not recognise why we a... (Below threshold)

I do not recognise why we are so much worried about the islamist state of pakistan as its own existence is not justified as being a part of GREAT MOTHERLAND OF INDIA and i feel americans are hypocrite I do not understand why GREAT INDIA BEING A TERROR VICTIM OF PAKISTAN for fifty long years should be did not answered to our grievances but aftermath 9/11 there blindfold was ripped apart but still they unintelligently support pakistan this is the dillemma of this world I do believe if world is to be kept safe then it should destroy pakistan and afganistan to absolute zeroed ground postion and handover the territory in the capable hands of GREAT INDIA
""""""""""""STUPID AMERICANS""""""""""""




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy