What Does the US Election Result Mean for the World?

[slaar]

I'll start off with Juan Cole's views as he's normally quite sharp:

http://www.juancole.com/

In my view the real significance of the Democratic victory is four-fold.

First, it demonstrates once again that the American public simply will not put up with a return to the age of colonialism and does not want to occupy Asian countries militarily. Do you think that Abu Ghraib and American torture-pornography, the daily grind of violence, the stupid mistakes, have passed them by so that they didn't notice? They might swallow all this reluctantly but they want light at the end of the tunnel. There is not any in Iraq, as these pictures strongly suggest. They want it over with. It isn't.

Second, he is not going to be able to put any more Scalia types on the Federal benches or the Supreme Court.

Third, A Bush administration war on Iran now seems highly unlikely. A major initiative of that sort would need funding, and I don't think Congress will grant it. The Democrats don't want an Iran with a nuclear weapon any more than the Republicans do. But they are more likely to recognize that there is no good evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program, and have been chastened by Iraq enough to distrust purely military solutions to such crises.

Fourth, there will now finally be accountability. It is obvious to me that the Bush administration has been engaged in large-scale crimes and corruption, and has gotten away with it because the Republican heads of the relevant committees have refused to investigate these crimes. Democratic committee heads with subpoena power will finally be able to force the Pentagon and other institutions to fork over the smoking gun documents, and then will be in a position to prosecute.

So pretty good really.

What we can say is that the electoral outcome is a bellwether for the future of American involvement in Iraq. It will now gradually come to an end, barring a dramatic disaster, such as a guerrilla push to deprive our troops of fuel and then to surround and besiege them. More likely, the steady grind of bad news and further senseless death will force Bush's successor, whoever it, is, to get out of that country. One cannot imagine us staying in Afghanistan for the long haul, either. Bush's question in 2003 was, can we go back to the early 20th century and have a sort of Philippines-like colony with a major military investment? The answer is, "no." Iraqis are too politically and socially mobilized to be easily dominated in the way the old empires dominated isolated, illiterate peasants.

 

[jiggajagga]

It means the chimp in the whitehouse has been castrated. I just hope he loses the senate as well. Bush's legacy to the American people will be that they are hated by more people on Earth now than they have ever been.
His entire response to 9/11 was wrong. It could have been so different with an intelligent whitehouse.
Lets hope the Dems have a bit more worldly nous!

 

[slaar]

Bolton, Global Warming Denier to Go. Cheney Isolated.

Some more good news this morning, think there will be a fair bit coming this way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6134734.stm

The US envoy to the UN, John Bolton, looks set to lose his job after the Democrats' victory in mid-term polls.

He will become the second high-profile member of President George Bush's team to leave after the polls, following Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush administration wants to keep Mr Bolton in his job but he needs to be confirmed by the Senate and senior senators say that cannot now happen...

It looks as if Mr Bush will be forced, very much against his will, to find a new UN ambassador and it will have to be someone the Democrats will approve.

Another big change is on the Senate environment committee, where a Republican who disputes the existence of man-made global warming is being replaced as chairman by a Democrat who says the issue is the challenge of our times.

Meanwhile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1944466,00.html

Donald Rumsfeld's replacement by Robert Gates at the Pentagon could mark the most significant shift in the balance of power inside the Bush administration since it took office nearly six years ago, with consequences for both Iraq and Iran.

Political observers in Washington predicted that the appointment could pave the way for talks with Iran and Syria in a bid to contain the violence in Iraq, and could also put off a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme.

 

[marksl]

It means nothing same as usual. on the bbc they interviewed bush aides former and present they basically said it doesnt matter who runs congress or how many dems get power, bush is still the president, they all follow in behind him like obediant lemmings.

 

[zion]

Marksl,

Cynicism is cheap, and anyone who speaks against it runs the risk of being accused of being naive.

Still, Congress is a powerful body, and it does matter who runs it. Bush will have an uncomfortable time of it over the next two years. He will still be president, but he will now have to work with Democrats to achieve anything significant. The amount of real change that represents is the amount that Democrats will be willing not to submit to his agenda - for which we will have to wait and see.

 

[Aldebaran]

It means nothing same as usual. on the bbc they interviewed bush aides former and present they basically said it doesnt matter who runs congress or how many dems get power, bush is still the president, they all follow in behind him like obediant lemmings.

Reads like the description of a dictatorship.

salaam.

 

[slaar]

Reads like the description of a dictatorship.

salaam.

It does.

It's also not true.

 

[marksl]

zion its realism, shouting about democracy and law doesnt mean it works it just means its loudly shouted about. The political changes in the Us wont dent the necon strangle hold of the country.

 

[zion]

Marksl,

The "necon strangle hold" [sic] is already weakening. Rumsfeld has gone, and the guy likely to replace him is not from the neocon group. Once he is confirmed, he is likely to introduce personnel changes that will weaken the neocon presence at the second level of the Pentagon.

 

[nino_savatte]

The neo-cons influence may be on the wane (though something tells me that they won't go away altogether; the PNAC still exists and they still have the power to lobby/influence/plant stories).

But watch these buggers.
http://www.phc.edu/

 

[marksl]

zion the whole american administration and much of its support its neocon based. And it wont change, your liberal americans dont do anything to change it they rely on the bush goverment to do it for them. Changing key posts around wont change the situation.

This belief that things get better by themselves or if you wait long enough believe in your system they are bound to get better is highly unrealistic.

 

[zion]

marksl,

I didn't wait. I worked to help secure the outcome that we've got in the midterm elections. We achieved all that the Constitution allows us to achieve in a midterm election, by taking control of both Houses of Congress.

If you define "neocon" as "Republican" or as "anyone who supports the US political and economic system", then sure, the difference between Rumsfeld and Gates will look pretty small. But most people use "neocon" to denote a fairly small cabal of Republican opinion, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and a few others, whose opinions about American hegemony and the role of force have been extremely influential under this administration.

When you say "the whole American administration", then, I guess you mean the White House, and we'll get our chance to overthrow that too. It just won't come till late 2008.

The whole point about the "key posts" that you refer to is that they are key. It really matters who is the Defense Secretary, in terms of how America's defense will be planned and implemented. And while I don't expect Gates to be a Democrat, I do expect him to bring a more realistic viewpoint than Rumsfeld had.

 

[marksl]

when it happens zion and there is a complete change around in american foriegn policy ignoring domestic i might share your faith and commitment until then its just a lot of words with little change.

Needs action not just public political displays.

 

[zion]

You want a "complete change around in American foreign policy ignoring domestic [politics]?

But don't many people on these boards excoriate Blair for doing precisely this: ignoring domestic opinion when supporting America's war?

Isn't the real problem, from your perspective, that you believe that American domestic political opinion is wrong about what foreign policy America should pursue, rather than that there is something inherently wrong about taking domestic political opinion into account?

There will never be a "complete change in American foreign policy", because there is never a complete change in American government. Unlike in Britain, the American government changes over one piece at a time. What you will see is some incremental change now from extremist Republican to moderate Republican. If Democrats retake the Presidency and retain both Houses (which would be very difficult), then you will see a return to moderate Democratic policy, including American efforts to broker honestly between Israel and Palestine and to withdraw from Iraq. But even then, many strands of American foreign policy will remain the same.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It means nothing same as usual. on the bbc they interviewed bush aides former and present they basically said it doesnt matter who runs congress or how many dems get power, bush is still the president, they all follow in behind him like obediant lemmings.

That's what you get for trying to learn about american politics by watching britisn television.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Reads like the description of a dictatorship.

salaam.

It reads like a description written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

zion the whole american administration and much of its support its neocon based. And it wont change, your liberal americans dont do anything to change it they rely on the bush goverment to do it for them. .

That is so dense.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Johnny, surely you must concede that both US political parties are bankrolled by big business and both will always jealously protect the workings of the corporate machine?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Johnny, surely you must concede that both US political parties are bankrolled by big business and both will always jealously protect the workings of the corporate machine?

Yes, business always plays a role, but if you can't see a difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations, then you don't know where to look.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, business always plays a role, but if you can't see a difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations, then you don't know where to look.

Of course, but both Democrats and Republicans are pretty equal when it comes to bombing other countries. This was around a year ago so it's probably out of date, but last I heard the US had bombed 22 countries since the end of WW2. I don't know how that splits Dem/Rep but my guess is that it would be roughly proportionate to their respective time in power - the countries-bombed-per-year ratio would be similar.

And regarding Israel/Palestine, don't the Democrats have a pretty large bunch of zionist New York Jews to keep happy? In other words, for the rest of the world, it may not make a great deal of difference, although if I were American, I would certainly want rid of Bush for his domestic agenda.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Of course, but both Democrats and Republicans are pretty equal when it comes to bombing other countries. This was around a year ago so it's probably out of date, but last I heard the US had bombed 22 countries since the end of WW2. I don't know how that splits Dem/Rep but my guess is that it would be roughly proportionate to their respective time in power - the countries-bombed-per-year ratio would be similar.

And regarding Israel/Palestine, don't the Democrats have a pretty large bunch of zionist New York Jews to keep happy? In other words, for the rest of the world, it may not make a great deal of difference, although if I were American, I would certainly want rid of Bush for his domestic agenda.

Clinton knew that al qaida was behind the embassy bombings. His response was to fire cruise missiles at their bases in afghanistan.

So yes, he bombed the place, but Bush invaded.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What the rest of the world needs, I think, is a good old-fashioned Isolationist for US President, of whatever colour (well, maybe one a little less hypocritical than the old-fashioned ones - one that really would leave the rest of us alone).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What the rest of the world needs, I think, is a good old-fashioned Isolationist for US President, of whatever colour (well, maybe one a little less hypocritical than the old-fashioned ones - one that really would leave the rest of us alone).

Yeah, but left to its own devices, the rest of the world comes up with things like Hitler and Stalin, and then the US just has to put the whole mess right.

 

[marksl]

johnny are you implying the america is some sort of master race changing the world at it sees fit to create a utopia of sorts, you also know that is what hitler believed in.

Also johnny this advert you present to america doesn't do the americans any favours, you make them out to be egostical war like fascists. hmm Maybe you are right after all.

 

[Fez909]

Yeah, but left to its own devices, the rest of the world comes up with things like Hitler and Stalin, and then the US just has to put the whole mess right.

And I must say, they're doing a marvelous job. Since Stalin died, the peace and prosperity which the US has brought to the people of the world, and the freedom from persecution which everyone now enjoys; why it's truly astonishing!

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Aldebaran]

It reads like a description written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Reads like a comment of someone who doesn't know who he is talking about.
I don't blame you for that JC, you never concealed that you read in my posts only what you prefer to make of them. Reason why you were for some time the lonely resident of my IL. I took you off it out of sheer compassion

On an other note: Recently I came across some comments made to and about you but. Personally I'm not convinced that you are a "Muslim hater" but you can't deny that you do your very best to come across as "somewhat" biased. At the very least it can be said that your posts demonstrate that you are "somewhat" biasedly non- or half- or false-informed when it comes to Islam, Muslims and related. That makes it difficult to start a reasonable discussion with you on such subjects.

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This article is, as you can tell, fairly old. It sums things up rather nicely though.

And what of the U.S. elections? Do U.S. voters have a real choice?

It's true that if John Kerry becomes president, some of the oil tycoons and Christian fundamentalists in the White House will change. Few will be sorry to see the back of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft and their blatant thuggery. But the real concern is that in the new administration their policies will continue. That we will have Bushism without Bush.

Those positions of real power - the bankers, the CEOs - are not vulnerable to the vote (. . . and in any case, they fund both sides).

Unfortunately the importance of the U.S elections has deteriorated into a sort of personality contest. A squabble over who would do a better job of overseeing empire. John Kerry believes in the idea of empire as fervently as George Bush does.

The U.S. political system has been carefully crafted to ensure that no one who questions the natural goodness of the military-industrial-corporate power structure will be allowed through the portals of power.

Given this, it's no surprise that in this election you have two Yale University graduates, both members of Skull and Bones, the same secret society, both millionaires, both playing at soldier-soldier, both talking up war, and arguing almost childishly about who will lead the war on terror more effectively.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Kerry will continue the expansion of U.S. economic and military penetration into the world. He says he would have voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq even if he had known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. He promises to commit more troops to Iraq. He said recently that he supports Bush's policies toward Israel and Ariel Sharon 100 percent. He says he'll retain 98% of Bush's tax cuts.

So, underneath the shrill exchange of insults, there is almost absolute consensus. It looks as though even if Americans vote for Kerry, they'll still get Bush. President John Kerbush or President George Berry.

It's not a real choice. It's an apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor & Gamble.

This doesn't mean that one takes a position that is without nuance, that the Congress and the BJP, New Labor and the Tories, the Democrats and Republicans are the same. Of course, they're not. Neither are Tide and Ivory Snow. Tide has oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser.

source

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Reads like a comment of someone who doesn't know who he is talking about.
I don't blame you for that JC, you never concealed that you read in my posts only what you prefer to make of them. Reason why you were for some time the lonely resident of my IL. I took you off it out of sheer compassion

On an other note: Recently I came across some comments made to and about you but. Personally I'm not convinced that you are a "Muslim hater" but you can't deny that you do your very best to come across as "somewhat" biased. At the very least it can be said that your posts demonstrate that you are "somewhat" biasedly non- or half- or false-informed when it comes to Islam, Muslims and related. That makes it difficult to start a reasonable discussion with you on such subjects.

salaam.

I find that there are many anti-Israelis on this board. There are also many who will overlook any wrongdoing by individuals who happen to be muslim, and who will refuse to consider that there could be any negative attributes associated in any way with anything islamic.

Since it would be contrary to the human condition to find a people or a religion without faults, I will take the counterpoint to these people, since so few others do so.

Those who take a facile view of things could assume that I was anti muslim. I'm not. What I am 'anti', is dogmatism, intellectual laziness, and political correctness.

I've said it before; what use is a discussion board where everyone takes the same side?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

At the very least it can be said that your posts demonstrate that you are "somewhat" biasedly non- or half- or false-informed when it comes to Islam, Muslims and related. That makes it difficult to start a reasonable discussion with you on such subjects.

salaam.

One thing I've learned since participating in this islamic debate, is the depth of my ignorance of that religion, and of the middle east. It has prompted me to learn more by buying books, reading more articles, etc. That is less desirable than doing those things plus visiting there, but it's at least a start.


My degree of knowledge is still slight, but it is greater than it was six months ago, and will be greater still in another six months.

 

[nino_savatte]

I find that there are many anti-Israelis on this board. There are also many who will overlook any wrongdoing by individuals who happen to be muslim, and who will refuse to consider that there could be any negative attributes associated in any way with anything islamic.


Those who take a facile view of things could assume that I was anti muslim. I'm not. What I am 'anti', is dogmatism, intellectual laziness, and political correctness.

This is risible. "Anti-Israelis"? My how reductive of you. Quel surprise.

Your last paragraph is a real hoot: you claim to be "anti-dogmatism and intellectual laziness", yet your cut and paste excursions say the exact opposite of what you said. Oh and "political correctness"? Predictable to the very end.

Keep 'em coming Johnny, my sides are splitting.