Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Pakistani mob burns 'blasphemer'

Nice allies you got there, America.


A Pakistani mob has taken a man accused of blasphemy from a police station and burnt him to death, police say.

The man was being held for allegedly burning a copy of the Koran in public. The incident took place on the outskirts of Bahawalpur, in Punjab province.Witnesses said hundreds of people looked on as he screamed for help.

Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law imposes the death penalty for insulting Islam, but it is rarely carried out. The area where the lynching took place is home to hundreds of madrassas - religious schools - run by radical Islamist or sectarian groups.

57 comments:

Allah swt said...

Burn a digital Quran

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Nope, not our allies, Zeyad. Those would be "allies" of Al-Qaida, whom we are fighting. That they operate in Pakistan has become no secret after the reactions of people to our removal of Bin-Laden.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Allah swt,

Thanks, but I'll pass. It's not a book's fault that people are idiots. Everything is open to interpretation, and if they want to see only the extreme version, it's their own fault.

Zeyad said...

Lynnette, al-Qaeda has nothing to do with it. Those are regular folks who dragged the man out of his cell and burned him to death while the rest of the village watched on and cheered. Enough with the "al-Qaeda" phantoms that your media perpetuates.

Marcus said...

I'd guess a majority or at least a lagre minority in Pakistan would welcome the burning of anyone who burned a koran. That said, burning a koran I myself find a silly thing to do, but at the most it should get you fined, perhaps not even that, and certainly not burned.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "Nice allies you got there, America."

You seriously think the Paki fundies are our allies?
This sort of naïveté isn't your usual refuge.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "The area where the lynching took place is home
      to hundreds of madrassas - religious schools - run by
      radical Islamist or sectarian groups.
"
      Zeyad, main page

      "Those are regular folks who dragged the man out
      of his cell and burned him to death while the rest of
      the village watched on and cheered. Enough with the
      ‘al-Qaeda’ phantoms that your media perpetuates.
"
      Zeyad @ 2:07 PM

Maybe you'll wanna pick one?

Zeyad said...

Lee, and who do you think attends the religious schools? Aliens? Saudi Arabia, another one of your allies, funds these schools for the general population to attend.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "Lee, and who do you think attends the religious
      schools?
"

I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't schoolkids who stormed the police station and took the victim from the police.
And, scope of our ‘alliance’ with the Saudi is and was vastly overestimated in the Middle East.  You may still harbor a Middle Eastern misconception about that.  You weren't here when Bush Jr. took a whole bunch of shit for having the Saudi king out to his ranch.  That went beyond the acceptable formal reception in Washington D.C., and was not much approved of over here (by the liberals and conservatives alike).
It is true that we both opposed Soviet influences in the Middle East.  It's equally true that we both opposed both Saddam and the 'Velayat-e-Faqih’ in Iran.  (And we do still have a common interest in opposing the latter.)  But it's likewise true that not only was bin Laden a Saudi, but also that fifteen of the nineteen 09/11/01 terrorists were Saudi.  We didn't let that pass unnoticed.

So, back to my question…  You really believe believe that the Paki fundies are our ‘allies’?  You really believe we are naïve enough, as a people, to think that?
Me, ‘fraid I'm gonna havta go with Lynnette on this one.  Those folks are way more likely to be supportive of al-Qaeda than they are supportive of us.  Gonna count them as ‘allies’ of either, they gotta come closer to being allies’ of al-Qaeda to ‘allies’ of ours. 

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
"Gonna count them as ‘allies’’ of either, they gotta come closer to ‘allies’’ of al-Qaeda than to ‘allies’ of ours."

That's better.

Zeyad said...

They're not allies of al-Qaeda. They are common folks who were enraged by a defiant act that they consider to be against their religion, probably the worst act possible in their eyes. Blasphemers are regularly executed all over the Islamic world (most notably in Saudi Arabia and Iran, no fans of al-Qaeda) and if this man wasn't dragged out of jail by the mob and lynched he would have been executed by the authorities (i.e. your allies, the ones you train and give billions of dollars of aid to).

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
And, ya get right down to it, the Saudi actually supported Saddam vis-á-vis the aytollahs of Iran; loaned him much money as I recall.  In the Middle Ease ‘ally’ can be a slippery concept.  But, that doesn't explain your apparent naïveté about the scope and extent of our supposed ‘alliance’ with either the Saudi or the Paki.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
And, ya get right down to it, the Saudi actually supported Saddam vis-á-vis the aytollahs of Iran; loaned him much money as I recall.  In the Middle Ease ‘ally’ can be a slippery concept.  But, that doesn't explain your apparent naïveté about the scope and extent of our supposed ‘alliance’ with either the Saudi or the Paki.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "if this man wasn't dragged out of jail by the mob
      and lynched he would have been executed by the
      authorities 
"
      Zeyad @ 5:35 PM

      "Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law imposes
      the death penalty for insulting Islam, but it is rarely
      carried out.

      Zeyad, main page
      (emphasis added)

Ya wanna pick one to go with there sport?  Or you wanna continue to argue both ways?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Here's something for you to consider Zeyad.  We gave the Saudi protection to get what we wanted out of them, which was a stable flow of oil to the world markets.  (Not even, necessarily to American markets.)  ‘Cause unstable, fluctuating, energy supplies makes it harder to do business and keep our economy on a reasonably predictable and level course.  We give money to the Paki in the hopes they'll do some of what we want them to do.  We started giving money to the Egyptian military way back when to induce them to not go back to fightin’ with the Israeli--that was part of the deal.
Don't know how that's sold ‘back home’ to naïvé Middle Easterners, such as you seem to be, but over here we actually recognize bribes for what they are when we have to pay them.

And we don't generally have to bribe our friends (may havta lean on ‘em a little bit now and again, but usually don't have to outright bribe ‘em).

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
And, just by the way, Bahawalpur is in the Punjab province, which is next to Kashmir, and al-Qaeda had long used the area as a training ground for its more elite fighters.  They used to be in and out of there all the time.  Don't know how much they're present these days, but the Hiqqani network and the Taliban are almost certainly still using the conflict as a training ground, and they're certainly still allied with whatever's left of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Just ‘cause the lynching was carried out by locals don't mean the locals are just ignorant, innocent minded, parochial folk who don't have at least emotional allegiances to terrorists.  Certainly come closer to supporting them than us.

Petes said...

Basically Zeyad, Lee C. wants to tell you that America's interest in the Middle East and Western Asia is purely out of financial self-interest, so no hard feelings. And you, being a mere native of said region, and having lived through an actual conflict there, are by definition a "naïvé (sic) Middle Easterner" and wouldn't understand such lofty motivations. And the Yanks don't really like the Saudi (sic) and the Paki (very sic), so any unpleasant happenings your naïvé (sic) self wants to bring to their attention is outside the scope of their alliances of convenience. Anything else you need to know, Lee C will be happy to tell you what to think. And yes, he truly is that arrogant. (Not too bright though, so I wouldn't bet on being able to enlighten him any).

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "Basically Zeyad, Lee C. wants to tell you that
      America's interest in the Middle East and Western
      Asia is purely out of financial self-interest…
"

First sentence; first error.  We also have actual physical security threats fermenting in that region (even though the Soviet Union is long gone)

      "And you, being a mere native of said region…
      wouldn't understand such lofty motivations.
"

Second sentence; second error.  We're talking wholly practical motivations here, at least, I was.

      "And the Yanks don't really like the Saudi…and
      the Paki…
"

Finally ya get one right.  We're not real fond of their governments anyway, and they're none to fond of us either.
(Rest of it is your usual trollery which I'll happily ignore, ‘cept to notice that I was indeed spelling naïve wrong--that I'll notice and correct.  Likewise notice that you're down to gloating over spelling errors again, and that's always a sign you're stretchin’ for a win.  So, how long you figure ‘fore the gnawin’ at ya gets the best of ya and you just have to make the mistake of tryin’ again on the red giants thing or even your silly math trick?)  

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Truth is, we're generally not over fond of Muslim fundies either, whether within or without the governments.  Our Bible thumpers disapprove on Bible Thumper grounds, and more liberal and tolerant folks tend to disapprove of them being so decidedly illiberal and intolerant.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

I did not mean literal allies of Al-Qaida, which is why I put that word in quotes. At least not in the sense that they are fighting for them. What I was trying to convey is that their behavior is akin to the extremism exhibited by Al-Qaida.

Why is there any difference between one type of extremism and another? The only difference I see is the prey. And, really, given the opportunity that may not be so different either.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

Blasphemers are regularly executed all over the Islamic world (most notably in Saudi Arabia and Iran, no fans of al-Qaeda)

But they are no fans of Al-Qaida not because they necessarily disagree with Al-Qaida's message, but because Al-Qaida is after their jobs. Or, one might say, their positions on the Middle East's chessboard. No?

(i.e. your allies, the ones you train and give billions of dollars of aid to).

Well, lotta good that did us in the case of Iran. As to KSA, as Lee pointed out, it was mostly Saudis who carried out the 09/11 attacks.

Seems to me that our alliances with Iran(in the past) and KSA(currently) are pretty superficial, from both sides points of view.

And by superficial I mean they are not natural alliances because of shared beliefs, but because of political(our Cold War with the Soviet Union) or economic (the goal of stable oil prices) reasons.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

One more comment. Do you have any thoughts on how we could help in neutralizing the extremism that seems to pervade the ME?

Marcus said...

Lynnette: "And by superficial I mean they are not natural alliances because of shared beliefs, but because of political(our Cold War with the Soviet Union) or economic (the goal of stable oil prices) reasons."

My opinion is that the US is first and foremost in the game for the following reasons:

1. Energy security - seeing to it that no other force could deny the US of ME oil and to strive to keep the flow going, which is good for the entire world economy - not just the US. Also to have the potential weapon of denying ME oil to enemies in a time of conflict. Basically the US is acting as the global energy-supply watch dog (And before you attack me for this I might add that it is quite possible that there needs to be such a watch dog and that the US is in fact the least bad one we realistically have today to handle the task).

2. Geopolitics. This ties in to #1 and is basically to make sure to push back or to retain the capacity to push back any competitor that might strive to dominate the region. Chinese companies are welcomed to get their contracts in the ME, but chinese military bases would be seeen as a severe threat. The US wants to have the final say in the region.

3. Protecting the Petro-Dollar, or the Dollar as the world reserve currency. The reason ya'll can run the deficits that you do without tanking like Iceland or Greece is the position of the Dollar. And the Dollar holds that position in large part because oil is traded in Dollars. The vast majority of nations need to buy oil, so they therefor need to get their hands on US Dollars. This props up your currency and rules that apply to other nations do not apply in the same sense to ya'll.

All these reasons I believe weigh way more heavily than the threat of any ME terrorists ever will. And these reasons are way more important to you than democracy in the ME is. If democracy would futher the points above you're for it, but if it would threaten your status in the region you'd be against it. If, for instace, there was a real democratic movement in the KSA but it was one hostile to American influence I'd bet your government would prop up the KSA regime to strike that movement down, no matter how harshly.

Zeyad said...

@Marcus: If democracy would futher the points above you're for it, but if it would threaten your status in the region you'd be against it.

See Bahrain, Yemen

Marcus said...

Lynnette:

"Do you have any thoughts on how we could help in neutralizing the extremism that seems to pervade the ME?"

I'd like to hear from Zeyad on that matter also.

My own opinion is that the outlook is bleak. The fact is that the ME in general is either poor like Jemen or has oil incomes like various other states. Even Dubai which is a financial centre would plummet if not for the oil money that finds its way there.

When did you last buy anything other than gasoline that was made in the ME? Dates mabe but no machinery, technology, medicine or any other processed goods. The entire region is also vastly over populated if you consider water and food recorces. The only reason the populations keep growing is that oil pays for imports of necessary goods. Not even Egypt which was once the corn-store for the Roman empire can feed itself without imports.

To get to the point:

Oil is what runs the entire region. And oil income has created a human surplus of which a large part has few opportunities for individual achievments. There are only so many public jobs and there are precious few innovative and competitive private enterprises. Young people go to school and get fancy degrees but the most of the jobs offered are in the public sector ripe with corruption. And there are huge legions of young people with few opportunities in life.

Couple this with a religion/culture that basically says (to the believers) you're superior to the non-believers, but where the non-believers in this world are doing so much better and what do you get? Frustration, anger, and extremism.

Now, if ME populations continue to soar and oil income will eventually start to drop, what's the prognosis for the future? More extremism I would say. Migration for the ones with the opportunity and extremism for many of the ones left behind. And I don't see this whole "arab spring" thing like a step in the right direction either. What democracy there was voted the fundies right into the drivers seat. Good luck crreating a society that spawns the next Apple Inc. with the Muslim Brotherhood in government.

Marcus said...

@Zeyad

I was thinking of Bahrein when I wrote the post.

The hypocricy in the entire west was very evident in the media rection to the protests in Bahrein compared to the rreaction to protests/insurgencies in other ME nations.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "The reason ya'll can run the deficits that you do
      without tanking like Iceland or Greece is the position
      of the Dollar. And the Dollar holds that position in
      large part because oil is traded in Dollars.
"

Simplistic, and, more importantly, wrong.  Japan runs deficits higher than ours.  Japan's overall debt to GDP ratio is over 200%; ours has barely reached 100%, if it's there yet.  The Japanese interest rate on their debt was even lower than that available to us last time I checked.  The Japanese yen is not a significant world reserve currency and oil is not traded in yen.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
      "See Bahrain, Yemen"

Those where hardly recognizable as ‘democratic’ movements.
The movement in Bahrain promptly broke down into a sectarian struggle, within the first few days, even the early, idealistic activists admitted that.  (I was following their blogs.)  The uprising in Yemen doesn't seem to have ever had any ‘democratic’ inclinations that I can see--just an ol’ fashioned power struggle among competing authoritarian-inclined power groups.
More to the point, we've not taken actions to prop up either regime, as Marcus accused, and you seem to suggest.  Mostly just stood back and stayed out of it in the case of Bahrain, and were actively engaged (diplomatically) in helping ease out Saleh, to the extent that he wound up accusing us of helping forment the uprising.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Marcus,

You leave out the sheer number of unemployed young people (relative to total population).  Those are very young populations, and they're gonna be pumping out babies, and population increase for quite awhile yet.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

@Marcus: If democracy would futher the points above you're for it, but if it would threaten your status in the region you'd be against it.


[Marcus] And I don't see this whole "arab spring" thing like a step in the right direction either. What democracy there was voted the fundies right into the drivers seat.


Zeyad & Marcus,

So if our support of democracy isn't going to help, except to usher in more fundamentalists, and we are condemend for not being supportive enough in Bahrain and Yemen, then exactly what are we supposed to do? Either the US or the West in general?

Back to you, Zeyad...

And if you can't answer that, having lived there, then how do you expect us to? :)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

   
My objection to having Pakistan labeled as our ‘ally pretty much comes down to everybody in the Middle East being always eager to lay down the claim that whomever they don't like today is an ‘American ally’.
Truth is, we don't do much in the way training Paki judges; in fact I'd go so far as to say there's probably not a single training facility on the subject of Pakistani law, or for Pakistani judges, anywhere in this country.  I'm likewise fairly sure it'll not be the Paki military who decide to enforce or not enforce their local blasphemy laws, so any training or money we give them for their military likely had no bearing whatsoever on that lynching in the suburbs of Bahawalpur, and, finally, ain't much chance that the lynch mob was stirred up by the CIA.
At a certain point this connecting up of every bad thing that happens to ‘American allies’ gets to be ridiculous and yet Zeyad manage to go there immediately and, it would seem, instinctively.  Force of habit I'd havta reckon it.
Perhaps I'm the one being being naïve now, but I'll hazard a guess.  Even growing up in Iraq you learn, if ya gotta pay people to sometimes pretend they're your friend, not even always, just pretend sometimes when it suits them, then ya both know they're not your friend.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "…then exactly what are we supposed to do?"

I propose we argue back agains the customary theme in the Middle East that everything bad that happens is our fault.  The common, knee-jerk reaction in that part of the world is that everything bad that happens came about either because we wanted it to happen or because we allowed it to happen.  Always our fault, knee-jerk.  Ain't much we can do about that except deny it and argue back.  Ain't like it's gonna go away; it's just too ‘comfortable’ for the locals to go there and stay there.  Absolves them of the blame for following the leaders they choose to follow and present to the world as their leaders.  When you're working from a social model so unfavorably adapted to the modern, mercantile world as is that of the Muslim Middle East, the need for an outside scapegoat will be constant and great.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Marcus,

The entire region is also vastly over populated if you consider water and food recorces.

Yes. This does not bode well for the region as a whole to weather(excuse the pun) global climate change.

The only reason the populations keep growing is that oil pays for imports of necessary goods.

Hmmm...I don't know, that seems a stretch. I think you have a lot of countries in the region where people have large families because of other reasons, such as religious(no use of birth control), or perhaps to ensure survival of the family line. And somehow I don't think abortion is an option in many places.

Oil is what runs the entire region.

Oil is what funds much of the region, yes. There is not too much diversification of industries that I see.

There are only so many public jobs and there are precious few innovative and competitive private enterprises.

I agree. Or at least not on a global scale. But then their economic structures seem more in line with socialism. Private enterprises are alive and well in the black market, which is more akin to capitalism. At least that's what I gathered on Iraq. Zeyad can correct me if I'm wrong.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "…so unfavorably adapted to the modern, mercantile
      world as is that of the Muslim Middle East…
"

I suppose we can exempt, to a large extent, both the Turks and the Kurds from that accusation.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Lee} Even growing up in Iraq you learn, if ya gotta pay people to sometimes pretend they're your friend, not even always, just pretend sometimes when it suits them, then ya both know they're not your friend.

Well said.

Zeyad said...

it's just too ‘comfortable’ for the locals to go there and stay there. Absolves them of the blame for following the leaders they choose to follow and present to the world as their leaders.

Look around, Lee. In Iraq right after the war Bremer handpicked the 'leaders' that best suited America's interests and forced them upon us (you can peruse my archives for the reactions of Iraqis to that at the time). The bunch we have today (Maliki, Allawi, Hashimi, Barzani, Talibani, etc.) were all propped up by the US civil administration. They managed to entrench themselves politically and militarily in the few years that followed and with the money they gained from commissions out of contracts with Halliburton and co. and 'bribes' they were in a position to win elections. Nevertheless, last time we voted, Maliki lost the election but look who's still in power? No surprise since he's the only Iraqi politician willing to keep you guys around. Doesn't matter how unpopular he really is. Might makes right.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

I suppose we can exempt, to a large extent, both the Turks and the Kurds from that accusation.

Yes, they seem to do all right for themselves. So that means it's not something that cannot be changed.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
@ Lynnette,

Even our State Department, who're pretty hired to talk optimistically and diplomatically, have given up trying to pretend that Pakistan is an ally in any sense of the word.  They play us for the money, and we pretend to not know that for what little cooperation we do get.  And that's pretty much it.

Marcus said...

Lee: "Simplistic, and, more importantly, wrong. Japan runs deficits higher than ours. Japan's overall debt to GDP ratio is over 200%; ours has barely reached 100%"

I don't know if you're trying to pull one off here or if you're that ignorant.

Japan's debt is almost solely to its own population, in Yen. They have very little foreign debt, The US debt is primarilly to foreign states, China being the biggest one. Do you not see the difference?

The Google it and read up some. I assure you here's a difference.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "(you can peruse my archives for the reactions of
      Iraqis to that at the time)
"

Your archives are available again?

      "They managed to entrench themselves politically
      and militarily in the few years that followed…
"

Those guys were entrenched, politically and militarily already.  That's why they got picked.  They'd have been at the heads of the uprising with their established power bases behind them if we'd have picked anybody else.  Grabbing up some idealistic ‘democrats(small ‘d’ on ‘democrat’) who'd not nursed an underground power base during the Saddam years was not a workable option.  Our opening mistake was in turning back the 4th ID stilll en route, before they got there, and not putting enough boots on the ground to keep those jokers honest while an alternative was worked out.
But, there was no workable opening alternative.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Yup. With 'friends' like that you don't need enemies.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

People popped up in the middle of that, Lee.

My 1:38 PM comment is referencing your 1:25 PM comment.

Marcus said...

Lynnette:

Me: "The only reason the populations keep growing is that oil pays for imports of necessary goods."

Lynnette: "Hmmm...I don't know, that seems a stretch. I think you have a lot of countries in the region where people have large families because of other reasons, such as religious(no use of birth control), or perhaps to ensure survival of the family line. And somehow I don't think abortion is an option in many places."

The population would never have increased to such numbers without food and water to subside it. And that food and water was imported and oil paid for it. Simple as that.

Now, think about an inceasing population but lower the oil incomes- what do you get?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "The US debt is primarilly to foreign states, China
      being the biggest one. Do you not see the difference?
"

Wrong again, wrong on the important part anyway.  Only about a third (off the top of my head) of our debt is out to foreign sources (many of them private and not state actors).  You are correct that the Chinese state is the single biggest creditor, but that's partly on account of them manipulating their own currency to keep their exchange rate down.  They're not doing that for our benefit, or because we're the ‘reserve’ currency.
Try again.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "My 1:38 PM comment is referencing your 1:25
      PM comment.
"

Got it.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Post Script:

      "They'd have been at the heads of the uprising
      with their established power bases behind them if
      we'd have picked anybody else.
"

You do recognize the name Muqtada_Sadr do you not?  We left him out; that didn't work out so well, did it?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "Now, think about an inceasing population but lower
      the oil incomes- what do you get?
"

Africa.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "I don't know if you're trying to pull one off here or
      if you're that ignorant. ***
      "The US debt is primarilly to foreign states…
"
      Marcus @ 1:34 PM

You can apologize for that unwarranted shot any ol’ time now.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
      "But, there was no workable opening alternative."

No comeback?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Now, think about an inceasing population but lower the oil incomes- what do you get?

Afghanistan?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Pakistan crossed my mind too.  (Place is held together mostly by a shared paranoia and hatred of the Hindus.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Not gonna be an apology forthcoming from Marcus I don't reckon.  So, I'll make one last point ‘fore I wander off:

      "Chinese companies are welcomed to get their
      contracts in the ME, but chinese military bases
      would be seeen as a severe threat.
"

They'd mostly be a threat to China, misplaced resources.  The Chinese are now spending more money on internal security than they are on their combined military (which devotes a huge percentage of its budget to internal security too).  They can't afford to take their eyes of the main threat; they can't afford a foreign commitment.

Well, ciao for now guys.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The Chinese are now spending more money on internal security than they are on their combined military (which devotes a huge percentage of its budget to internal security too).

As much as we bemoan the horrible economy here or in Europe, we forget that China has problems of its own. They have a billion people to feed, house and clothe. Not to mention medical expenses, if there is any health care available. I rather think the leadership there worries more about internal issues than foreign adventures.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
Post Script:

It's not like Iraq needed an Iraqi George Washington, somebody who could command the allegiance of troops, and lead them in battle.  The Iraqi had our troops to do the enforcing; all they had to do was go get their fingers purpled.  What they needed, and never could find, was an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, or John Adams, somebody who could inspire and lead a political movement.  They had to get the votes; that's all they had to do.  We'd have supplied the muscle to enforce the vote.
No Iraqi ever showed up to fill that role.  Or, if they did, not enough Iraqi would listen to him.  (I briefly had some modest hopes for a Sunni chieftain, one Sheik Abdul al-Rishawi outta Anwar province, to whom we were introduced by the Shia blogger, Alaa, ‘The Mesopotamian’, but he got taken out by a suicide bomber and the ‘Awakening’ seemed to lose vision and focus after that.  It may be that Allawi tried to go there, or would try to go there if he could, but so far he's not gotten the votes he needed to crack through the Shia establishment.  And I may be giving Allawi a little too much credit there anyway.)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

There are all sorts of gems in Zeyad's archives. It's kind of like rummaging through someone's attic. He hasn't put any comments back though. They might be kind of interesting, juding by his responses in his posts.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.     said...

 
I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that it was the comments to which he referred.  Back in the day he had Iraqi making comments.