Hasn't racism always formed a basic component of all imperial and/or colonial strategies? And haven't economics driven this strategy? Yes on both counts, I believe.

So by all means, bombing the wogs and getting that pesky oil law through the Iraqi congress is a practice completely consistent with tried and true western strategy.

Note how sloppy the right is, in their use of the term "WMD". I don't think chlorine tanks are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many chemical weapons, improvised and not improvised, don't qualify as "WMDs". Iraqi chemical artillery shells used in the Iran-Iraq war were not "WMD". These were tactical chemical weapons that simply do not match the WMD definition.

And yet, the need is very great to find ANYTHING that might be foisted on the american people as WMDs. In response, right-wing apologists have become very flexible in their definition and use of the term, when it comes to the arsenals of other contries, or of "terrorists".

When discussing our own arsenal of weapons of course, a completely different yardstick is to be used.

Of course. And, prior to Gitmo and Abu Graib, torture and Military Commissions Act, wiretapping w/out warrant and renditions, other nations might have listened to our press and our government on such issues.

But our government's observations on Geneva Conventions and human civil liberties are not of interest to anyone now. Not to other nation states, and not to most of its own citizens. Sure, our state department can pop-off about it, as can the president, or legislator, or press. But no one with any sense of decency will be listening.

The UK asked us to stay out of the issue--very wisely (they declined our kind offer to buzz Iranian vessels with our military aircraft, for example). We should comply with the UK's wishes, and shut the hell up.

Pandora's Box isn't the half of it.

I believe our right-wing friends have a term of art for this. They call it the "Law of Unintended Consequences". Truly, the concept is a pillar of right-wing thought.

Congress, for example, should just not pass any legislation. Just don't do it. For every enacted law has Unintended Consequences, and these are going to be harmful, and cannot be predicted.

The 'unintended consequences' of war, on the other hand, are to be expected and are simply part of the natural order of things. Eggs must be broken and omlettes must be cooked. Nothing to be concerned about. As Rumsfeld said during the Sacking of Bagdad by its own citizens: "It's messy".

As we all know, the right is just chucky-jam-full of contradictions of this sort.

not 'messy'.

"Untidy" was the word he used I believe.

I apologize for any inconvenience. It was an unintended consequence of posting.

WT sed:The problem with folks like Michael Ledeen and Glenn Reynolds isn't that they're authoritarians per se, it's that they're stark raving mad...

I don't know if they are mad, but their positions are inconsistent, contradictory, unreasoned, illogical. Arguing with them, or the trolls here, is like arguing with a random numbers generator. GG can point out their inconsistencies, hypocracy, dishonesty, etc., until the cows come home. They will not change. The trolls here will not change.

Regarding the trolls who habitually comment here, arguing with them is a waste of time. They comment here because they enjoy the fuss. The contrariness of the activity is what amuses them. But in the many months I've observed this space, I have not seen any growth or positive outcome from arguing with these individuals. It is all just sniping and snapping, leading to nothing.

Juan Cole has a new piece out in which he offers a schematic for peace in Iraq. I think Cole's article (in The Nation--linked at Cole's site "Informed Comment") provides a more accurate and informative sketch regarding how 'liberals' might be viewing the current situation in Iraq, and how they view the people of the middle east.

The reporting errors, as well as the complete lack of followup in the media, have always amazed me. Where did this story go? Great piece.

Tribalism is a form of social organization. It likely does have its roots in the stone age. So do clans. And so do states. The four major classes of social organization--Band, Tribal, Clan, and State, all occured in the stone age. They all still exist today, albeit in different proportion.

The view that tribes are uncivilized comes from a mindset that social evolution = progress. It doesn't. Evolution does not equal progress.

It is true that Iraq is a cradle of civilization. Not "THE" cradle. "A" cradle.