2-0 !!!
Seems to me that AlSadir is alive and kicking, he got extra super popularity, he IS a resistance figure now, a hero, and he walked out smiling. great job USA!
well, they say that these bodies found in the so-called share'a court are killed by Sadr and his people, but i *really* don't believe so, think with me, you are totally surrounded by Iraqi and US troops, you expect that, you have enough food in the shrine fore one month, you have a military defense plan, you have weapons, you have people talking for you on TV, and you just *forgot* to clean the mess behind you?!!
naaaaah.
Sadrists know that this war is the greatest chance fore them to get popularity, there win depends on people's support; there is no way they would leave all these bodies behind if they really were responsible for killing them.
yesterday one of Sadr's people announced that these bodies are for Sadrists killed in the last conflict, but since the Iraqi government cut the water of the city, they couldn't wash their killed people, which is a must in Islam before burying them, so they managed to move them, during the war, to the court building, waiting for this crisis to end (isn't is funny that they were sure it is gonna end and they are walking out?) so they can Barry them.
makes sense to me!
Oh, Sadrist who were in the shrine surrendered their weapons, that few tens of weapons, and after they left their spokesman declared that alMahdi army is not giving up any of its weapons!
See what I mean when I say stupid administration? Now it seems fun to me to go but some guns, make a small army, fight the government, the occupation, and then I walk out smiling, and the government pays for the damages too!:D
GOD they are stupid, stupid stupid.
So, I don’t know about you guys, but seems to me that its like:
Iraq (thugs and insurgents) 2 – 0 occupation and appointed government (the liberators and the national government).
Aw you don’t remember the first goal? It was in Falluja!
Seems to me it's gonna be a looooong game.
Who you think will win?
aw, one mean suggestion from my friend, he said since we are effected by it, shouldnt we be allowed to vote for the elections in USA? he said that maybe Sistani will be the president of the USA and Alsadr will be his deputy:D
well, as horrible as this sounds to american people, its more horrible for u to have their goverment leading us.
thank you for litsenning:)
me*
65 Comments
Well for once Khalid I think that I agree on your assessment of the situation. This last action was a total victory for all the freedom hating people of the world, and it can only bring more misery not only to Iraq but to everyone. today we are all Spaniards.
Madtom
Regarding the sadrists mudering the 10 ppl.
First based on the way its reported it obviously was sadrist, jazeera didnt make a peep, if there was a hint that they were made by someone else we would have photos from every single angle of it splashed out daily on our tv with unemployed gravity defying bodies (aka political analysts) coming on the screen giving us a conspiracy theory or other.
Second, if someone died during 'Jihad' as a 'shaheed' (very loosely used here), by islamic law they should be buried the way they were found , as in no need for washing them.
Third, the mehdi army are used to doing all forms of murder torture and dismemberment heres a small sample of what they did najafs own policeFinally the numbers... the last report said there were over 400 ppl dead, how come only 10 bodies surely a bit more would show and why would they be dragged into a courthouse used by the mehdi army to torture ppl in the first place.
Scary how this is turning out,sadrists in the south and wahabists at centre , i hope we at least get that pseudo federal state if not break away as soon as possible before each one starts imposing their own version of the sharia on us.
ahh, mad tom, you got me totally wrong.
as for the islamic law, its true that those who die in jihad should be burried the way they died, but those who get killed because of war, not during jihad, like people of Najaf in this case, would be treated like any dead person, maybe thats why the hundreds of sadrist killed werent found.
but i am only guessing, who knows!
My name is ?lvaro Frota, I'm a brazilian and this is my first comment in this blog.
Average americans is a very brainwashed and hypocritical people:
1.) USA drops lots and lots of cluster bombs, fire lots and lots of missiles and shoot thousands and thousands of AC130 bullets in a dense city and in a nation that is UNDER OCCUPATION after a ILEGAL WAR based on comproved lies (WMD and Iraq-Alqaeda links).
To bomb an occupied country and kill hundreds of civilians is against Genebra Convention, but average americans don't see nothing wrong in this. "We are trying to freedom the people from anti-Iraq forces" they say.
2.) 10 bodies appears within a room of the bombed city. Average american forget the other hundreds killed by the bombs and say: "Well, that is the evidence we are right in bombing this city to freedom this people from anti-Iraq forces!"
Is too mucht to me...
Aquele abraço!
?lvaro Frota
Long life Brazil!
GO Brazil Go!
me*
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Aquele abraço!
?lvaro Frota"
Just wait till the religious courts or El Comite come to your neighborhood then write back with all the great details.
Madtom
"ahh, mad tom, you got me totally wrong."
Time will tell.
Madtom
Some questions to an american soldier, if one is reading this:
Dear soldier:
If you are questioning the WMD issue, you need to answer these historical questions:
1.) First of all, who fully supported Saddan even before he becomes dictator of Iraq?
2.) The first iraqis killeb by Saddan were the socialists. Who supported this?
2.) Long time ago, at the time of Aiatola Komeini's Revolution in Iran, Saddan led a war against Iran. Who fully supported Saddan at that time?
3.) Who sold to Saddan the gasses he used against curds?
4.)Who were acused by the US, at that time of Kissinger, to be guilt by the gassing? Iraq or Iran?
If one is questioning hinself for the reasons of War, his mind must be open for one alternative: and if after all there is NOT any reasons for the war?
If there is not valid reasons for the war, another question arise: Who is guilt for the holy hell war was created?
One must open his mind for this second question.
In www.iraq-war.ru there are some information from the other side of this war. It's a russian based site, but I'm a brazilian and we are a internation team, with many americans to.
Hope you stay alert that reflective people is an easy target in the holy hell Iraq is today. Then, forget this bs when in the terrain.
Aquele abraço!
?lvaro Frota
mad tom, you said that this is a sad day for all people who love freedom or something, thats when i said you got me totally wrong.
the truth is simply, its a very happy day, the occupation army has been screwed to the bones while it was screaming.
i really injoyed watching it.
long life Iraq, down occupation, go Brazil!
me*
khalid, you seem to exist in a fantasy world
al-sadr got spanked , his lame army couldn't even fight his way out of his own base, the man himself disappears after one cut to his hand to hide in a cellar, finally he had to be rescued by sistani, a 70 year old man
the humiliation is al-sadr's, some muslim he is to bring such a holy site into the targetting sites of the world's most powerful military.
perhaps next time it would be better to level the shrine or whatever building al-sadr is holding hostage
fact is that its difficult to take him out without offending all the religious crazies, who as usual, are the ones causing most of the problems in the first place
anonymous
your comment has been deleted. telling another commenter their post is "the stupidest" and asking to them to stop commenting is unacceptable behaviour. before you next address someone, think about how you felt at having your own comment deleted.
a different opinion is fine but insult slinging is not.
btw khalid ~ who do i think will win? no one. it's not a game and no one will win, nobody ever does win a war.
oops, that last anon was me.
well that brazilian guy is talking out of his arse, afaik
throwing slogans around is really lame , where is your evidence of tons and tons of cluster bomb usage in najaf
thats the kind of thing u'd expect a student to say
Madtom --
Your attempt to insult the Spanish is based on the assumption that their withdrawal from Iraq is some kind of victory for the Al Qaeda types. Correct me if I am wrong.
Spain went to war together with the US because it alleged Iraq was linked to 9-11 & had WMD. When this was proved false the US (and you, from the context of your words) assumed the right to impose your own government on a foreign people. In reality the Spanish people realised that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the US, and that the war was immoral, illegal, and had nothing to do with liberation.
Kudos to them for waking up and doing the right thing.
Anonymous --
If ?Ilvaro's post is so stupid, why don't you subject it to a dose of dissection and analysis? You are the stupid one, indulging in name calling without providing a basis. Try again.
--Bruno--
?Ilvaro --
Thank you for commenting. I like to hear voices from South America, because you can add another perspective to the old imperial agenda of a certain un-named American country. I wonder what our friends in Venezuela have to say about the intervention and internal meddling courtesy of a unspecified large country to your north. (nudge nudge wink wink).
I agree largely with your analysis, and am reminded by your words of that Vietnam era US general who said something along the lines of "we had to destroy the (Vietnamese)city in order to save it".
Btw, what does does "Aquele abraço!" mean exactly? My Spanish sucks.
--Bruno--
Bruno-
I did not attempt to insult anyone, only to point out what a disaster the events of last week had turned out to be.
In doing so I only insulted myself.
Khalid,
You are also mistaken it was not the coalition that got screwed, but the chances for a peaceful and democratic Iraq with prosperity for all.
It is very telling that such a thing would make you or anyone happy. Savor the moment as it may not last long.
Madtom
Bruno,
The Brazilians speak Portuguese not Spanish
Madtom
Well.
My name is ?lvaro Frota and I'm from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I'm 47 years old and I work at IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estat?stica (Brazilian Institute of Geografie and Statistics) as a rechearser and as a teacher of Statisticis in a University.
Sorry by the english errors. I'm typing withou my on-line "Babylon" dicionary.
Brazil was a colony of Portugal; then, we speach Portuguese. Without my Babylon I don't know the words for "Aquele abraço!".
By trying to kill or arrest Moqtada Al Sadr and failling in it, the US occupiers loss more one political and military batle. As in April, in Fallujah, whem, after the kill of the 4 blackwater mercenaries, US try to invade the city and faill in did it.
These 2 decisive batles were winn by the Sunnite and Shiite resistance. With both, the war against Iraq had led to a "point of no return". The best US can be today is withdraw its forces. Whem one is digging a hole, by not stopping to dig, the only that occours is the hole is being bigger and bigger. That is the situation.
About the cluster bombs in the first week of fight in the holy Najah's cemetary, one must try to extrapolate CNN and FAUX NEWS as a source of information... After all, as we brazilians know, the truth is very very far from the american media.
No WMD was descovery. Either no links betwin Iraq and AlQaeda. Saddan is jailled. Why not to end the occupation? Answer: WMD, Saddan and AlQaeda was just false argumentation for the still of the iraqi oil and the construction of US bases in Iraq.
Aquele Abraço!
?lvaro Frota
?lvaro Frota
I agree with you that these last encounters with the "resistance" were a complete debacle. What the administration is doing here is beyond me. A decisive victory, no that I don't agree.
This "resistance" is not all that big and what are they resisting anyway democracy, modernity, the future. But there are many other Iraqis that don't agree. Many still feel the pain and fear of dictatorship, and would rather die than return to the way things were. Iraqis that desperately want the US to stay and help, no matter the cost.
Ask them if they care about WMD, they will tell you that SH was himself a WMD. Should we just pick up and go leaving them all behind? That, would be a decisive victory for the enemy and against international law.
You live in Brazil in relative peace with the world, you trade with the rest of the world.
Madtom
Please read this.
http://fayrouz.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_fayrouz_archive.html#109373952863588846
Madtom
the spanish government is a ship of fools, and hypocrites. They promise to help Iraq, then pull out after one bomb in their own country. Look at the fuss they make over gibraltar, while still retaining colonies of their own.. This should give the reader enough clues as to spanish duplicity.
Brazilian : Please keep your anti-american racism at home. I know this is a waste of time but im gonna try anyway:
The gulf war ended in a ceasefire, dependant on certain conditions, which Saddam failed each and every one.
After ten years and 14 UN resolutions, and in the post 9-11 environment, that war was restarted.
So the war wasnt illegal.
no WMD found ? so what would you call Saddam?
The arabic is renowned for fantasising about 'great battles' and 'heroics', when the reality is of course totally different. People like khalid wish to make heroes out of no-brainers like al-sadr, that is fine and they are entitled to their opinion, but think of this. If a man in Brazil decides one day to post his anti-american racism on a blog, then its not suprising to hear it from an Iraqi. Luckily, there are other iraqi blogs with a more informed and less childish outlook on life and reality, people like the guy from healing iraq.
Personally i find khalid's outlook on things laughable and i would guess he gets a lot of it from al-jazeera.
Hopefully there are more people than him with geunine hope for a more peacefull future, and more people who are willing to become part of the solution, not another part of the problem.
Tbh its pointless arguing over the validity of the war anyways as its a done deal, its just a shame that so many racists are around in the world, especially europe, and iraq isnt getting the worldwide help it needs
the spanish government is a ship of fools, and hypocrites. They promise to help Iraq, then pull out after one bomb in their own country. Look at the fuss they make over gibraltar, while still retaining colonies of their own.. This should give the reader enough clues as to spanish duplicity.
Brazilian : Please keep your anti-american racism at home. I know this is a waste of time but im gonna try anyway:
The gulf war ended in a ceasefire, dependant on certain conditions, which Saddam failed each and every one.
After ten years and 14 UN resolutions, and in the post 9-11 environment, that war was restarted.
So the war wasnt illegal.
no WMD found ? so what would you call Saddam?
The arabic is renowned for fantasising about 'great battles' and 'heroics', when the reality is of course totally different. People like khalid wish to make heroes out of no-brainers like al-sadr, that is fine and they are entitled to their opinion, but think of this. If a man in Brazil decides one day to post his anti-american racism on a blog, then its not suprising to hear it from an Iraqi. Luckily, there are other iraqi blogs with a more informed and less childish outlook on life and reality, people like the guy from healing iraq.
Personally i find khalid's outlook on things laughable and i would guess he gets a lot of it from al-jazeera.
Hopefully there are more people than him with geunine hope for a more peacefull future, and more people who are willing to become part of the solution, not another part of the problem.
Tbh its pointless arguing over the validity of the war anyways as its a done deal, its just a shame that so many racists are around in the world, especially europe, and iraq isnt getting the worldwide help it needs
i just read bout what the brazilian said bout fallujah, LOL
you seem to have your facts mixed up, yet again.
Insurgents in Fallujah got their asses kicked, and only and i repeat , only because of concern over destruction of the city, were offensive operations put on hold, and a new scheme was tried.
Giving the people of fallujah the chance to provide their own security. This of course was a disaster.
Very quickly the religious freaks and ex-baathists were controlling the city with their usual enthusiasm.
In essence, Iraqi's themselves failed the first opportunity given to them, as they will do so each and every time they surrender control to fanatics.
It amazes me that, in fact i dont believe you are serious, you can say the US army 'failed' to take Fallujah, when all the supporting evidence points to a political failing not a military failing.
Madtom --
Your remarks re. the Spanish are appreciated. Apologies to all for *my* mix up in languages re. Brazil. I had Spanish on the brain yesterday. I should have remembered that fact; the Portuguese guys that I know always boast about having 2 soccer teams, Portugal, (and after Portugal loses as usual) ... Brazil.
Alright, the remarks you made about the insurgency are more on topic. My response: Basically the Coalition forces are seen as occupiers, and a huge majority of Iraqis want them to leave. Support for this statement:
CNN Poll released in June:
(findings are based on face- to- face interviews conducted by IIACSS in Baghdad, Basrah, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah & Baqubah between 14 and 23 May)
92 % of Iraqis see CF as occupiers
41% want you out immediately; an additional 45% want you out immediately after a g'ment is elected. Total : 85% want you out in mere months.
Only 32% would feel less safe if you left.
And ... almost 80 % believe that attacks vs CF have increased because the Iraqi people have lost faith in the Coalition.
If you have done any sort of study of who comprises the Iraqi resistance, you will see that it draws from a broad spectrum of religious, ethnic and regional peoples. They are battling for a wholly Iraqi future, not for one that reports back to Washington. It seems obvious that the Resistance commands a much greater crossection of support than do the CF. And, significantly, they are not necessarily Baathists, either. By eliminating the Baath leadership, the US freed the way for ordinary Iraqis to fight the Coalition without being seen as Baathist stooges. Capturing Saddam, IMHO, only added fuel to the fire.
You : "That, would be a decisive victory for the enemy and against international law."
I would like to point out that the US's invasion of Iraq was against International Law, and that never stopped you.
--Bruno--
Jeffrey --
( Dust hangs in a haze; the snarls and snaps of the dogfight resound off of the alley walls. From the fringes Jeffrey the Attack Chihuahua scuttles in and scores a direct nip on the paw of a ravenous pitbull ! With a baleful look in its eye, the pitbull turns its gaze on the midget menace. The question now is, will a bigger dog jump in between them, or is Jeffrey destined to become a meaty morsel? )
Your eager pouncing on my error aside, I assume that you agree fully with the rest of my post? Nothing else you feel the urge to say? Related to the debate, I mean? As an old waft of flatulence once said:
"Come to think of it, I've heard you TALK about debate but you never ENGAGE in it. Hm."
Hm. Indeed.
--Bruno--
?Ilvaro Frota --
Maybe they think that if they dig deep enough, they will come out on the other side. I think that they will just end up caving the hole in on themselves ...
The reality is that without the support of the Iraqi people on the ground, the US will NEVER win the fight against the insurgency. They might have had a slim chance at the very beginning, when Iraqis were glad Saddam was gone, and before they knew the true face of occupation. Now? Forget it.
You : "... iraqi oil and the construction of US bases in Iraq."
I agree with these sentiments.
People are finally starting to wake up, thank goodness.
--Bruno--
Anonymous --
I will return to your post without a doubt. Btw, why don't you put a sig. at the bottom of your post to distinguish yourself from all the other anonymouses? Even if it is just a "1" or whatever.
--Bruno--
I just had post some historical and ordinary questions and oppinions but, whem one average american readed them ... "You brazilian are a anti-american RACIST!"
If one re-read my words, pleased me and tell me whith are the racist ones.
It's typical: one american, people of one racist country, is acusing other people who put some questions to be "anti-american racist". It's "american" a "race"?
And, after all, as a brazilian, I'm an "american" to. A latin american one.
The truth is so simple, but the average american is so blind...
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Anonymous --
I'm going to concentrate on the legality or illegality of the war in Iraq, as that seems the most pertinent to the current situation. The legality or not of that war essentially boils down to a single fact: that the UN and the US are two seperate entities. The UN is the legal custodian of the 1991 Ceasefire, not the US. America has no legal right to decide anything regarding punitive action towards Iraq ... only the UN has that authority, no matter how many conditions Iraq may or may not have broken.
The facts on the ground bear witness to the veracity of what I am saying. If the US was the legal holder of the Ceasefire, why did it lie up such a storm over Al Qaeda links and Iraqi danger to US home soil? All that would have been needed would have been to simply state that Iraq had broken certain conditions and that was that. The US lies happened because it had no legal case and the Bushites knew it. They needed outrage at home, and manufactured it. The war was illegal.
You:"no WMD found ? so what would you call Saddam?"
I can say the same of Bush. That is no argument.
You: "its just a shame that so many racists are around in the world, especially europe, and iraq isnt getting the worldwide help it needs"
I think that the only one crying about this is Bush. He deliberately alienated old allies in favour of a cheap fling with whatever countries he could buy off or intimidate ... and now you cry due to a lack of help? Get a life! Why should Europe pitch in to subordinate Iraq for the US; why should Europe pour money into Iraq to feed US companies?
Old European allies told you that this war was immoral and would end in disaster ... and now you are reaping your bitter harvest. To say nothing of the Iraqis caught in the middle. You have much blood on your hands.
--Bruno--
?Ilvaro Frota --
A nice remark there about "Americans" not being a race. Some commenters really ought to consider what they are saying before posting.
--Bruno--
Bruno-
Interesting that you would bring up polling, as I never trust a poll. There can be way to many influences on the poller or the pollie to ruin the out come.
What do you tell me about the 1400 Iraqis sent to Baghdad from all around Iraq to form a new council.
Were these people not real Iraqis, puppets of America, or just trying to fool America into a trap?
Or should we just ignore them and there voice.
I think these people had enough of communist dictators and came together to try something new even if they did not completely understand just how it would work.
But they, I believe know that the old ways are gone forever, and that it's time to learn some new tricks.
Madtom
i think the brazilian dude is racist.
He bleats out anti-us propaganda without bothering to back up any of his bland statements with facts.
Yes, you are a racist : Your posts merely confirm it.
Let me ask you, from a different angle, what has brazil done to help anyone recently?
Bruno : I think your points at least are worth discussing, but you made a fatal mistake, the comparison between Bush and Saddam is frankly, ridiculous.
For one thing, Saddam started many wars for no obvious reason, his country held in fear , objectors killed without mercy, entire tribes & villages exterminated,
the country's wealth squandered on vanity.
Bush has started one war, in Afghanistan, to kill the nasty Taliban. He also resumed the Gulf War against Saddam. People in America are free to criticise Bush.
Villages and families do not disappear overnight in the US. Bush is accountable to the US citizens, Saddam was not.
Its interesting i get a lot of the same comments from my european friends, i can understand that Bush is hardly the most popular guy on the planet. However, this critism is both unwarranted and based , more loosely, on anti-american jealously , a reaction to the
dominance of the US-centric western world.
I think its sad that you would offer such a crazy comparison and it , frankly, demeans the value of your other viewpoints, which although equally wrong, are at least arguable
I had post some historical and political questions here. If one support the occupation of Iraq and has intelectual honesty, he/she is compelled to answer these questions. But...
"The brazilian guy is stupid. No more posts!" Period. No answers, no debate.
The moderator intervened and delete this. Then...
"The brazilian guy is racist. Period. No answers, no debate.
I state that average american is brainwashed and it is a political and ideological opinion. If one try to avoid to answer the questions by accusing me to be racist, he only confirm my statement: brainwashed people is incapable to think.
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Anonymous --
You misunderstand what I am saying. I was attacking your argument, and pointing out that saying Saddam is a WMD makes no sense. He cannot possibly qualify for the legal interpretation of WMD. That is just propagandising on your part. What sort of argument are you basing this claim on? What I did was make a similar claim about Bush, and your reply indicates to me that you have a similar reaction to me when confronted with such an unsubstantiated argument.
But since you brought it up :
Bush may not have killed thousands of Americans. That honour has been reserved for Iraqis. If I look at the rate at which Iraqis are dying, by extrapolation, a ten year + occupation of Iraq will result in about 200 000 + deaths due to direct US / Coalition action and the accompanying unrest caused by the invasion. That is close to Saddam's score. Ah! I hear you remark that probably a large share of that total will be resistance and insurgents. To this I respond with "so what?" The Shia that SH massacred were in large part resisting his rule, and *these* deaths are considered deplorable. He also called the dead Shia thugs and thieves. Sound familiar? Why should Iraqis resisting US rule be counted any differently?
Families dissappear overnight in Iraq, to reappear in Abu Ghraib as hostages held by the Americans. Why do you think such a large percentage of the inmates are admitted to be innocent by both the IRC and CF ? This collective punishment is illegal.
Bush invaded Iraq on manufactured lies and riding on a climate of fear. The Iraqi invasion is merely a stepping stone in his neoconservative agenda of (gasp) world domination, as detailed in documents from PNAC and other US far right sources. An excerpt for your digestion:
From "Rebuilding America's Defences", Page 17
"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
This from a document dating to circa 2000. The Bushistas had always planned to invade Iraq and plant longstanding bases there, to keep an eye on the treacherous Arabs in case they got ideas of independent action. Control of a dwindling oil supply sounds good too.
You see, I know exactly why Bush invaded Iraq. For sheer Imperial ambition on countries the US had nothing to do with. At all. Do you know why Saddam invaded Iran and Kuwait? Or are you merely making assertions blindly? Let's have some facts, please.
Re: "... on anti-american jealously , a reaction to the dominance of the US-centric western world."
Possibly there is a kernel of truth to this. I myself find American culture a little over the top and superficial. (And, I understand the reasons behind those qualities. Do you?) But, mere dislike of a dominant culture is not a very good explanation for such virulent attacks on a President and on the policies of a country. The fact is, current US policy is likely to cause more chaos in the world, not less. That's the scary fact, and that's what Europe is telling you.
Finally:
"He also resumed the Gulf War against Saddam."
I think I have debunked this theory of the war being 'on ice' already. Do you have any, umm, factual arguments detailing the US's legal right to 'resume' the fight ... or are you merely saying this because you *feel* that this is the way things should be?
--Bruno--
Madtom --
You have a point there with the argument you make about the polls. It is easy to influence the respondent, and more importantly, unless one has the entire poll in one's hands, it is easy for an outside source to infer things from it that are not true, by using omission and so forth.
BUT! This is not the only poll taken from Iraq. Basically, the other polls I have seen reinforce the results of this one, and when several independent polls point in the same direction, I believe them. Secondly, some of these polls were commissioned *by the CPA / CF*. Would it not make sense to try to influence the respondents to pick options most flattering to the Coalition?
On to your next point. I'm sure that many of the Iraqis appointed as governors etc. really did mean well for the Iraqi people, together with the sycophants and stooges. Many of those appointed have resigned in protest to US tactics; I'm thinking of the governor of Najaf and the ex- CPA Minister for Human Rights here, but there are more. The fact is, these people are supporting an unpopular occupation, regardless of their intentions, and are legitimising occupation by their support. Unfortunately for the well meaning ones, they run the risk of being killed for their actions.
--Bruno--
On influencing polls:
Rigged program in American vote-counting system can produce false election result
Bruno-,
You did not read my statements about Iraqis choosing there own council, did you?
You sure did not answer my post, try again.
Madtom
http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-do-we-need.html
Here is another Iraqi and "if" you read this you will see that he brings news right from source, SADIR city.
Who are the people that support this resistance?
Madtom
Well of course american culture is tacky and superficial, that is one of the things we like about them in a kinda perverse manner. It's best summed up as : McDonalds sucks , but i often have a burger there
i still think saddam is a WMD, lets face it people lives were solely dependant on the mindset of one man, and his apparatus.
I understand your viewpoints , but really its a war.
A war unfortunately that is bigger than iraq even.
A war that should be fought by muslims against muslims, but instead is being fought by the west.
The fanatics are everyones enemies, and its sad that people are suffering in iraq right now , but stop resisting if u are, and just go with the flow.
No ones asking you to be a clone of america,
you have your own identity and culture, but really you need to stop bitching bout america and just go with the flow , you can choose who u want to be now... so why be a hater ??
Bruno:
Your apparent glee in the deaths of American soldiers ("that honor belongs to Iraqis")is nauseating. Such statements show your true blood thirsty nature and strip you of any moral standing to pontificate on any issue. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Bruno:
You continually pontificate about International law. Do you recognize that it is an imperfect system that on occasion must be disregarded by nations states to accomplish justice? The primary example is the NATO bombing of Serbia to stop Milosevic's systematic atrocities against the Kosavar Muslims. The Russians and Chinese had promised a Security Council veto so NATO was forced to move ahead without a resolution in violation of International Law. Most people agree that it was the correct decision.
Thus, to be consitent, merely stating that an action is against International law is an incomplete analysis. Are you now going to argue that (a) Saddam's regime was morally legitimate or that (b) if U.N. sanction had been lifted, that Saddam wasn't a long term threat to the region. You would be the first serious person I have seen do so.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
Mark-In-Chi-Town said:
"No ones asking you to be a clone of america, you have your own identity and culture, but really you need to stop bitching bout america and just go with the flow, you can choose who you want to be now... so why be a hater?"
Of course none is "asking [iraqis] to be a clone of America!"
Iraq people are asked to:
1.) Allow "free" elections in that only pro-american candidates will be allowed;
2.) Allow the perpetual steal of ther oil;
3.) Aloww the perpetual establishment of 14 huge american bases in Iraq;
Then, as America is invencible, the best one can do is "just go with the flow". And, of course, "why be a hater?" Just forgot 1 million babies dead by the american's DU ammunition, 14 years of blocade and starvation, a couple tens of thousands of deads, cluster bombs on civilians, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
American average people is so magnanimous!
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Alvaro:
Dude, the post you responded to wasn't mine.
However, I am responding to several of the issues you raised. Your point about permanent bases and stealing oil are not well grounded in fact. If world domination, military bases, and stealing oil were the reasons for the Iraq invasion, the U.S. could simply use nuclear weapons (or even MOAB or daisy cutters) on rebellious cities like Fallujah, Najaf, etc. True Empires, like the Nazis or the Romans, had little trouble crushing resistance and extracting natural resources from conquered territory. These things haven't been done because those are not the goals.
Further, the U.S. has given up bases in a number of countries when asked by the host government, examples include Subic Bay Naval Station in the Philipines (1992) and bases in Panama (1999). Your blind hatred for the U.S. is coloring your ability to think rationally.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
Mark-In-Chi-Town
First, my apologies. The style of the posts eluded me.
But, you said:
Your blind hatred for the U.S. is coloring your ability to think rationally
Please, Mark! Try to be original! By saing those words to me, you're saing to, in the interlines:
"Mr. Alvaro, I will NOT hear you, ever, never, whatever!"
Of course, I DO hate USA Empire and, of course I do NOT hate american people, I do NOT hate even the "averege ones" than this troll that onwed a looser's blog.
I don't hate american people becouse, primarly, american people, even this troll, is the first victim of the USA Empire. As in all previous war, young american (and not so young to) are dying and beeing mutilated by the iraqis in a very larger scale that you believe. Try to investigate the German's hospital...
What you know about facts? There are a blocade of information. You knou this? The (tiny bit of) information that are allowed to average americans is very biased. This is a fact to. You knou this? Are you too lazy to google Internet with the properly key words or you think "they only wrote such and such becouse they hate us" and just don't google?
Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Real capitalists have only interests, not more. If you have in your mind plus than interests, you are NOT a truly capitalist and, believe me, you will fail in business. Real capitalism, as a economical and historical norm, turns into imperialism. And all imperium turns into war. It is about real History I'm telling you. Despite the fail of the "socialists" states, History didn't stopp.
Fiat-currency: You knou what is this? No? Try to investigate and study... Well, I will give you a bit. Dollar is the utimost fiat-currency of the world. USA has congenital deficts - commercial, public and financial - becouse USA becomes a deindustrialized nation. How to cover the deficits? By printing more and more dollars...
But money isn't a god. Money is only a historical form of accountancy of human work. Or you don't ever had realized that the human beeing trade work one with other to live, to reproduce the specie, to eat, to get dressed and to have some abitation on earth? After all, we are just animal that thinks. Don't you study evolution on scholl in America?
Most americans surely work hard, but about 55 milions familys do nothing but profits wiht bonds and other papers. American wasts 30% of world energy, having only 5% of population. The printed dollar have no correspondence in human work and only have valor becouse oil's world trade is in dollar. Nations needs dollar becouse nations need oil. Than, Saddan decides to convert the Iraq's reserves to Euro. It was a big danger to the fiat-currency, becouse the second step might will be to trade oil in Euro. Then, imperialism turns into war...
It is one teory. I tell you only some parts of the teory. There are more, about Israel, but is enought for this debate. Another teory is the "war on terror" teory. By honestly investigating the "call-the-cops-number" stuff and also by honestly investigating who is the real authors of the beheadings and other terrorist stuff you might to evaluate what teory fits better the facts... After all, who creates AlQaeda in first place?
USA Empire establish 2 conditions for one who wants to participate in the iraqi political process:
1.) Accept the fact the iraqi oil will be ever denationalized, and taken by the american companies;
2.) Accept the fact the USA is constructing 14 huge military bases in Iraqi;
In the other hand, Iraqi Resistance establish a single condition to participate in the iraqi political process:
3.) Withdraw of all the occupier's troops.
The war is about this very material things. The war is not about religion, race, culture and hate.
Um dia compreenderas!
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Madtom --
Alright, you are making out that these Iraqis selected by the council are somehow democratic choices by the people. Is that what you are saying? Let me ask you a simple question. How were the attendees at the Council chosen? Who were the people who were 'approved' to vote for these appointees, and who did the 'approving' ? I think you will find that by controlling access to the council, you can manipulate the outcome.
If I am missing your argument, try rephrasing it, and I'll do my best, OK?
Anonymous --
"A war that should be fought by muslims against muslims, but instead is being fought by the west."
YES! That is the crux of the matter. Or nearly. Most Muslims do not, based on what I have read, want a Taliban like state. I truly believe that they would root these elements out on their own, given sufficient trust and incentives.
BUT! The question also needs to be asked ... why do these elements exist (aside from the explanation of fringe groups being in all societies)? The answer is clear : Western manipulation in the Middle East has given rise to extensive ill feeling and hence armed reaction against the manipulators. I can't blame them. Yet, the US's current solutions consist of invading and increasing the amount of resentment ... leading to the rise in mainstream support for these elements that otherwise would be relegated to the backwaters of society. I can't believe that I am the only one that sees this.
--Bruno--
Other Anonymous --
Huh? *Where* did I say in my post that I wanted US soldiers to die? Get some glasses, you need them.
I don't want *anyone* to die in Iraq ... BUT ... if killing US soldiers is the only way to get them out ... then yes, they must die.
I assume *you* support things like this, then:
"FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) Wed 1 Sep 2004 - A U.S. air strike on the Iraqi city of Falluja killed at least 14 people including a woman and three children, Iraqi doctors said early Thursday. "
--Bruno--
Mark --
No, Saddam's regime was not, based on what I have read, morally legitimate. But it was *legally* legitimate. Moral != legal. And, moral legitimacy is relative. The current US incursion into Iraq is neither morally nor legally legitimate, despite the smoke that they try to blow in our eyes. The entire point of laws is to ensure stability and a systematic method of doing things, avoiding chaos. Chaos tends to result in situations that would be described as morally wrong.
The problem arises when one considers the fact that there are two sides to every story, and that each party sees his own issues as having greater moral weight than the other. If the way was open for 'justice' as you describe it, there would be many an atrocity committed that might seem perfectly justified from the point of view of the one committig it. Do you agree?
Let me give you an example of partisan views, and how they might seem justified.
Kuwait was once, long ago, part of the lands we now call Iraq. Furthermore, in the Iraq-Iran war, Kuwait supported Saddam because he was protecting the Arabs from a flood of radical Shiism stemming from Iran. Thirdly, after the war, when Iraq was in serious debt, Saddam asked other Arab states for money to alleviate the financial crisis he was in, reasoning that the war had been fought on their behalf too. None was forthcoming. To compound matters further, Kuwaitis started "slant drilling" into Iraqi oilfields from their side of their border. Iraqi complaints to the UN etc fell on deaf ears. Surely, the only reasonable solution would be to invade this parasitic, renegade province, and get them to help pay for the war fought on their behalf?
Now, you and I know that the Kuwaiti invasion was wrong. But ... this example serves to show how an opposing argument seems quite rational from a partisan viewpoint. If the US goes around setting precedents for this sort of unilateral flouting of international laws, other countries, (perhaps China / Taiwan) might get the idea that one is entitled to solve problems unilaterally by force, claiming 'moral' reasons that are always relative to one's view, in the end.
Surely frank discussion is the only way to reach a compromise?
Whether Saddam would be a long term threat or not is a point for debate. It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. It would depend upon the military strength of his neighbours, the willingness of the Iraqi people to embark on yet another war, and the amount of security, both financial and military, he felt he had.
Finally, just to respond to the comment you made to Alvaro: New US doctrine advocates the maintainance of small, easily expandable bases closer to possible centres of anti US sentiment. Basically: these large bases were redundant in terms of the new doctrine and in terms of shifting strategic challenges. The bases are more than before, but just smaller.
An excerpt from the CS Monitor, "New US strategy, Lily Pad Bases"
"At the heart of the strategy is the Pentagon's desire to take the offense in a post-Sept. 11 world where future threats are unpredictable, although broadly seen as emanating from lawless or less developed regions. The goal, therefore, is the fast, flexible, and efficient projection of force - with "lily pad" bases like Manas playing crucial role as staging points."
The other point related to your Imperial argument is that control by proxy of regions and resources is much more cost effective than brute military force. Support for brutal dictators in Uzbekistan etc is largely ignored by world opinion, whereas US troops on the ground cause much more of an uproar, with negative side effects.
Alvaro --
You seem to be quite clued up as to the situation of world economics.
Check out www.billmon.org The maintainer is an economist as far as I can remember, and he had some interesting links as well. Perhaps you can chat.
--Bruno--
Bruno:
I'm haven't much economical knowledge. I only had study a bit of Mandel, the marxist economist of the IV International. Economy is about work flux, materialized work, but work after all, and currency is the account of who legaly owns the other's work by nothing.
Then, economy is about slavary. Conclusion: real politics is about revolution.
Marxists have this particular vision about economy & politics that allow us to such analise. The idea I got in the Economical Wire of Mirror of the WorldYou agree the war and occupation is around the 3 points I had posted?
Aquele abraço a TODOS!
Alvaro Frota
War is about to kill. In war, the soldiers are paied to kill and, of course, to die.
The guerrilla's men also die. And lot of civilians.
Who kill who? As a norm, becouse of the utilization of air raids and heavy weaponary, and becouse the large utilization of "supressive fire" by the americans, they are far the responsible of the kill of civilians.
As a norm, american kill iraqis and iraqis kill american and kill the colaborators. And there are, of course, a dirt war, the so caled psico opoerations, carried by CIA's stooges like AlQaeda, and the assassinations of intelectuals by the Mossad.
War is a lost x lost game. But, if defato there are a war, one must participate. The neutrality is to choose the most powered side.
After all, who is the foreign people in Iraq? Who have the bigger power to destruction? Who is trying to state a puppet "democraticaly elected" government? For USA, democracy is say "amen" to the "power that be", the USA government led by George "Nero" Bush.
Even if there will be an election, what about one election under foreign occupation?
Aquele abraço!
AF
Jeffrey --
I find it odd how you cheer everytime Iraqis are killed, yet profess to be 'on their side'.
To be quite honest, I have nothing against US soldiers on a case by case basis ... however, they are the instrument by which US Imperial policies are being carried out. The same as you were entitled to destroy the Taliban because they attacked you, Iraqis are entitled to take up arms against them.
Do you deny the right of the Iraqi people to self defense?
I feel sorry for the soldiers who signed up thinking they were going to defend their country (a noble cause); I think that your bosses have other plans for them ...
regards,
--Bruno--
Bruno:
I agree that control through proxies is generally cheaper for an Empire, but only if it can be done efficiently and without sginficant opposition. This is clearly not the case in Iraq.
With similar levels of opposition, the Roman legions would be crucifying Iraqi civilians by the tens of thousands under an explicit policy of collective punishment. The Nazis would have resorted to similar, but more modern tactics.
Further, where is the U.S. control of the political process that would be necessary under your proxy theory? An objective observer would say the Iraqi political situation is chaotic, not tighly controlled by anyone. Sistani seems to be acting as an independent political force; the most powerful one in the new Iraq, I might add. What of the scheduled January elections? The combination of the rise of Sistani and the scheduled elections doesn't sound like a very good plan for proxy control.
I don't think the facts fit neatly into your proxy control theory. I do agree that the U.S. would like to have, at a minimum, friendly relations and some influence with whatever Iraqi government is elected. However, this would make the U.S. no different from any other great power in the world.
The two U.S. base closing that I cited happened years prior (1992 and 1999) to the lily pad basing strategy, which as I understand was adopted much more recently.
You refuse to entertain the notion that any U.S. action can be done for anything other than a nefarious purpose. This ignores the nature of the U.S. government in which a variety of actors with very different views are constantly vying for ascedancy. The pinnacle of NeoCon influence was last spring. Their gross mismanagement of post-war Iraq has lead to their influence being eclisped by the Colin Powell's less militarily aggressive and idealogical State Department.
U.S. policy is and will constantly change in view of world events, competition within adminstrations, and the changing of adminstrations. It never has been, nor will it be, nearly as monolithic as you make it sound. Your world view seems to lack the nuance to accomodate these facts.
Moreover, you did not really address the issue of exceptions to the rule of International Law. What of the morally justified, but technically illegal NATO actions to end the Kosovo crisis?
Mark-In-Chi-Town
brazilian guy, save ur speeches for your student bar
maybe move out your parents house and see the world as it really is , u muppet
"Is that what you are saying? "
Bruno-
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109407792442563822
He can say it better.
Madtom
Mark --
Thank you for your eloquent and frank post. I will try to reply in kind.
Also, the question of comparing Kosovo with Iraq seem to be, in my view, facets of a much larger discussion on humanitarian war. I'll address this at the end of my post.
"It never has been, nor will it be, nearly as monolithic as you make it sound."
Firstly, you are seeing US policy from the inside. From the outside it seems pretty monolithic, believe you me. From an outside perspective there are more damaging and less damaging elements representing your society and country. The latest neocon elements are the worst of the lot, and have thus attracted the most opposition.
The US looks *always* after its interests, (and while I might not like it, it is a fact of life) ... but *how* it does so is important. Blatantly invading countries with hostile brutal dictators and simoultaneously supporting friendly brutal dictators in pursuit of natural resources is simply not on. Trade agreements, aid packages in return for concessions etc. are fine.
(As an aside, I ought to tell you that the flood of popular culture from the US emphasising Liberty, Justice and Freedom is a serious handicap to you. Why? Because often US policy jars strongly with that theme, and the resultant hypocritical light shed on you makes things look even worse than they already are. It makes indignant people like me ready to jump up and point out the difference between rhetoric and reality.)
OK, that is not up to standard, but it'll have to do. I hope you understand what I am saying.
Secondly ... the US bases. I admit I am not clued up enough about the Phillipine bases story, but I betcha that the US got other, better, bases in compensation, or they were deemed irrelevant. I'll check it up. You see, once again I am attributing nefarious motives to the US. ;)
You are right, the Lilypads are a recent development, a far as I can tell.
Thirdly, on proxies and Sistani.
"An objective observer would say the Iraqi political situation is chaotic, not tighly controlled by anyone."
I ask: Is this by choice or necessity imposed by the harsh realities on the ground?
Things seem clear enough as to what the US intentions were at the *outset* of the campaign, and that was definitely to go the proxy "Shah of Iran" route. Chalabi was to be El Presidente for as long as needed, and he would execute whatever orders his bosses gave him. When that collapsed, the 'caucuses' plan was put forward, comprised of handpicked representatives. When that failed, the CPA. Need I go on?
The current situation on the ground is spiralling out of control. I'm still not sure whether Sistani is acting on his own behalf or the US's. In any case, he seems to play every side like Paganini. At this point, I'm guessing the US is starting to consider any party as worthy that does not explicitly advocate the destruction of the Great Satan. We will see. The game is not over yet, not by a long shot.
The fourth, and final point to me is the most important and sticky one of the lot.
"Moreover, you did not really address the issue of exceptions to the rule of International Law. What of the morally justified, but technically illegal NATO actions to end the Kosovo crisis?"
Please note, I am not saying The Law is cast in steel. I was merely pointing out to those defending the Iraqi invasion who used the "war was legal" argument that in fact they are wrong, full stop. Feel free to argue the point. On to the next point.
What we are talking about is humanitarian war, and the right of outsiders to act as arbiters in the case of internal civil bloodshed. One extreme viewpoint is that outsiders NEVER have the right to interfere in any internal happenings of a nation. (Which of course brings up the tricky question of what is a nation and where is the line drawn between a failed state and a legal state) The other extreme view is that humans MUST ALWAYS act in the case of unjust behaviour between peoples. The truth, according to me anyway, lies in between.
Now, the problem lies in the fact that humanitarian war does not occur in a vacuum. It is rarely as simple as "these guys are good, those are bad, and by intervening it will unquestionably be the better for everybody"
In order to weigh up the merits of such a war there are many factors to consider, these being just some of them: The merits of the case of the people supposedly being rescued vs the merits of the case of those doing the oppressing; the scale of the oppression; the possibility of intervention causing more loss of life than the current oppression; the effect that intervention will have on bordering countries; the ease of rebuilding what has been broken and the repercussions that intervening will have upon international law and order.
This is quite apart from concerns about the motivations of the intervening countries. Does the intervening country have powerful vested interests in the resources of the country, in the political structure of the country and so forth? Does it want concessions in return for intervening?
This is the problem with the whole argument about moral imperatives and legal restrictions. The law ought to be there to reflect justice. Often it does not. But, the stability provided by law is also a form of justice ... that is ... if one considers chaos to be undesirable and conducive to 'evil' behaviour.
What I am saying is that the issue is not so simple.
On the surface of it the Kosovo intervention seems far more justifiable than Iraq. My reasons for this:
(1) There was much greater international consensus about the need for intervention. (2) The ethnic conflict (or cleansing, if you want) was happening *at that moment* Iraq's massacres had ended over a decade ago (3) There was no obvious vested interest on the part of the countries taking part, like "let's steal the oil". (4) There was no ideological machination behind the move, unlike in Iraq, where potentates are testing out their latest domino theory using other people's blood. (5) There was no occupation of Serbia. The objectives were clearly defined, and the participants restricted themselves largely to fulfilling them.
There are other aspects to that crisis being more palatable than the Iraqi invasion, but I think that those are enough.
To be fair, I also feel that there were aspects of the Kosovo intervention that galled me, such as the bombing of power stations and other civilian type targets in Serbia that were unneccesary. The lack of international consensus (UN mandate) also sticks in my throat. As does the blatant support for the KLA and the resulting backlash on Serbian civilians in Kosovo itself.
I can see you thinking, "he is dodging the question". Not at all. I am merely pointing out that giving my blessing to one operation does not necessarily extend logically in having to support Iraqi invasions too. Overall, the Kosovo operation was probably 'sorta' justified, but I also feel it could have been conducted differently, and with more emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the initial stages.
--Bruno--
Alvaro --
Please email me at brunoccs8@yahoo.com
Your last posts were most interesting, but I feel that they might be best discussed in private. If you give me your email, I'll send commentary to you on Monday, as I don't have access over the weekend.
Obligado
--Bruno--
Bruno
My e-mail is alvarofrota@terra.com.br
You may write in Englise or in Espanish either.
Alvaro Frota
Bruno:
We agree on many things and appear to disagree on others. I too believe in the rule of International law, but I am acutely aware of its flaws and limitations, especically those in its effecitve enforcement. Thus, while I believe its basic frame-work must remain intact, there will be sitatutions that call for action outside of the U.N. Whether a specific instance rises to this level will often subject to dispute among people of good will.
Speaking of limitaions on effective U.N. action, I hope that the Darfur crises doesn't degenerate to the extent some type of foreign intervention in necessary to prevent a disaster. Since the U.S. has a full plate, how about South Africa taking up the peacekeeping challenge?
As to the U.S. "always" pursuing its national interests, you cited one example, Kosovo, where this was clearly not the case. The Somalia and Bosnia interventions also come to mind. The U.S. has never really had any important national interests in those countries.
One point that you made seems to me to be illogical. Why should the presence of natural resources make any difference to the issue of whether an intervention is genuinely "humanitarian?" Do people in a resource rich country suffer any less from oppression by a despotic government than those in a resource poor country? Of course, I will grant you that the presence of resources can make one more liable to be suspicious of motives of the intervenor, but it should not be a dispostive factor in the analysis. Furthermore, the presence of natural resources can allow a despot to buy international political influence to try to prevent appropriate action from being taken against him. Saddam seems to have engaged in such a scheme.
To me, the fact that Saddam was a long term regional threat to the most important natural resource in the world economy should be weighed in favor of action, not against it. The effect of 150 dollar a barrel oil brought on by a re-armed Saddam on a rampage through the ME would be fealt much more deeply in marginal third world economies (picture widespread famine), than in the industrialized world.
I think the issue of whether to depose Saddam as an "appropriate" exception to International law is a very tough call. There is little or no dispute that Saddam was a despot and a meglomaniac (recall his claims of being the new Saladin, etc.). He had been contained by punitive sanctions that hurt his people much more than they had hurt his regime. There can be no doubt that, if sanctions had been lifted, he would have re-armed as fast as possible. The prospect of a nuclear re-armed (via North Korea) Saddam rolling tanks back into Iran and Kuwait and then heading for Saudia Arabia is frightening. To wait until his death for change was not a good option since he had groomed two sons that were equally worrisome. It doesn't seem to me there were any obviously better long term option than to go to war.
The only logical option that I have heard from anti-war types is to wait for his own people to deposed him, but that was tried and failed after the Gulf War. As a result, hundreds of thousands died. The people power route doesn't seem to have been bound for sucess since the man had ruled for roughly thirty-five years without any loosening of his iron grip on power. Further, his people could have suffered under his rule (or those of his sons) as well as under the required sanctions to deter him for decades to come. Would this have been fair to the Iraqi people?
My answer would probably have been different if Saddam (a)was signficantly more mentally stable, (b) didn't pose a dire a long term threat to his neighbors, (c) was less repressive within Iraq, and (d) couldn't have thrown the world economy into a crisis by choking off world oil supplies through attacks on his neighbors.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
"The effect of 150 dollar a barrel oil "
But this is part of the plan, In some minds this would even out the playing field with the US. They think that they can survive easier because their societies are used to living in an energy poor environment or something to that effect.
Madtom
"how about South Africa taking up the peacekeeping challenge?"
SA is already committed elsewhere doing peacekeeping in the DRC and in Central Africa. (Personally, I feel we have enough problems at home that require scarce money to solve, and that we are wasting cash in doing this, but my opinion matters not to the G'ment ...)
On the Kosovo etc issue, there are people who might disagree with you on the US national interests side of the conflict:
Clinton says U.S. interests at stake in Kosovo
CNN February 26, 1999
"Clinton said if the violence in the Serbian province spreads, Albania and Macedonia will be drawn in and U.S. allies Greece and Turkey also could be affected. Tensions could also spread to Bosnia and jeopardize progress there toward a stable peace, he said. "
... but on further reflection of your words you are likely right regarding the disparity in scale of interests between Iraq and Kosovo. When one compares the interests at stake in the two places, you are right and I am wrong about the US *always* having its interests at heart. Well, at least with the information I currently have at my disposition, of course. I could always change my mind about the Great Satan ... ;)
As for Somalia, that was an attempt to impose some sort of control over a lawless country, that was providing sanctuary to AQ type groups. That is certainly within your national interests. (Although, I will also point out that the existance of these groups is partly a result of US troops in the ME ... )
"One point that you made seems to me to be illogical. Why should the presence of natural resources make any difference to the issue of whether an intervention is genuinely "humanitarian?""
As I said, the elegibility of a war being 'humanitarian' or not is on a case by case basis. What you said about people in resource rich countries not suffering less than resource poor ones is true. BUT! Given the US's history of ever increasing military intervention in the ME, given the US's huge pro capita energy consumption, given previously stated policy in the ME such as the Carter Doctrine and, given the latest Neo Conservative pretensions to World Domination (tm) ... the oil in Iraq, for example, is key to understanding the causes for invasion. In this case at least, it is obvious that the oil was a main factor, in many different ways, for precipitating war.
Whether SH would be a long term threat is a matter of debate.
As I said, it would really depend on the financial status of Iraq, the military strength of his neighbours, and the will of the Iraqi people to undergo further wars at his behest. For example a powerful Saudi / Small Gulf States military alliance might well dissuade SH from attacking, assuming he wanted to.
From a purely strategic perspective I note that at the point when he (Saddam) was engaging in the most vicarious violence of his career, the Iraq-Iran war, there was not a peep from the US about what a danger he was. Why? Because he was in alignment with US strategic interests in staunching the tide of radical Shiism from Iran. As soon as he stepped out of the script, he became a monster again. What's the bet that he will not allowed to speak in his upcoming trial, to avoid remarks on the long and fruitful relationship he and the US have had in the past?
Your analysis re. Hussein is probably largely correct. The matter of his charming sons taking up the reins also is probably correct. So, what to do, in such a pickle?
Basically, (*ASSUMING that you have the right to interfere in the Middle East*, which I don't think you have the right to:) this is what I suggested on a post elsewhere, on how he might be deposed in a more controlled manner:
Myself:
"(a) solve the Palestinian crisis first. Force the Israelis and Palestinians to go back to the agreement that was being reached before that knucklehead Arafat launched his second intefada, and iron out a compromise there. Yes, Israel behaves like a shit. No, it is not going to go away, no matter what the Arabs want. Thus, the world would have to reach into its pockets and help compensate the Palestinians for the grief they have endured and the land they have lost. This is a major sticking point with the Arabs, and resolving it would have greatly repaired the dim view the Arab street takes of the United States. All this without squandering the sympathy you gained from 9-11.
(b) Approach the Arab governments, and together with them, formulate a multilateral strategy for the removal of Hussein. Yes, a very difficult task, but made easier through goodwill achieved through solving the Palestinian issue, and because most of them dislike Hussein already. But really, the only viable way forward. The States could provide the muscle, and the Arabs the peace keeping ability, because they know the language and customs. Make it especially clear that the USA was not going to try to interfere with either the formation of an Iraqi government, nor request military bases. Also, that the reconstruction would be handled in an exceedingly transparent and equitable manner, with a large portion of the reconstruction going to the Iraqis themselves. The UN could be involved, perhaps for logistics and fund raising. Obviously, all this with a detailed, comprehensive post war plan for the Iraqi reconstruction.
My solution is, of course, laughable, because the US gets no tangible advantage for doing any of this, so it would never have happened. But that is the way is should have been done.
Oh, and the world needs to find an energy source other than oil."
To this I would also now add: make sure that the Afghanistan reconstruction is a stellar success in order to dispel any notions that the US is there because of the transAfghan oil pipeline, and to reinforce the idea that the US is about justice and democracy and helping people.
You see, the question is not really was SH a SOB, but it is: "does a country have the right to interfere in the politics and policies of another?" And ... if we agree that they have a right ... to what degree does this right extend when the costs are weighed up? For example, try this scenario for size:
Bush's policies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of international citizens. Furthermore, many more will die if he is allowed to continue down the path he has set. Thus, he is a long term menace to world peace, and should be overthrown by force. The cost in the lives of ordinary Americans does not count, as long as peace is restored.
Does this seem right to you?
btw, I appreciate the intelligence and maturity of your responses. I had you lumped into the rabid, mindless pro war crowd for some reason; this thread disabuses me of the little 'rabid' and 'mindless' lables I had tagged to you, at least.
--Bruno--
Oh! And, regarding the Phillipine bases, I dug up a bunch of interesting stuff reinforcing the Great Satan image of the US. Here it is:
Piggybacking _
The "War on Terrorism" Leaps into the Philippines by John D. Brulé
"Filipinos struggled to expel the US military over the past century, finally succeeding in 1992, despite tenacious US efforts to retain naval and air force bases. The US had invaded that beautiful land in 1898, replacing centuries of Spanish colonialism with a US version. In 1946, after five years of control by the Japanese, the US granted the Republic of the Philippines a form of "independence." However, even though the Philippine Constitution forbade the stationing of foreign troops there, the former US bases have been under Filipino control only since 1992.
Now in the guise of "links to al Qaeda," the US has returned to the Philippines, which many Filipinos regard as violating their Constitution. Philippine President Gloria Arroyo granted permission for this new invasion, after receiving a $100 million gift of US military equipment. "
and further:
"This thuggery (of Abu Sayyef - my note) existed long before al Qaeda and is a domestic problem. The US has neither the knowledge nor the capacity to solve this internal problem. "
BUT! I ask, were the troops really gone? Let's see:
Women and the U.S. Military in East Asia - Volume 4, Number 9 - July 2000 - Gwyn Kirk, Rachel Cornwell, and Margo Okazawa-Rey - Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)
"There were extensive U.S. bases in the Philippines until 1992. In 1991, the Philippine Senate voted against renewal of their leases. The U.S. subsequently proposed a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to cover situations when U.S. troops are in the Philippines for joint exercises or shore leave. The VFA gives access to Philippine ports and airports on all the main islands for refueling, supplies, repairs, and rest & recreation (R & R) — potentially far greater access than before, but under the guise of commercial arrangements and without the expense of maintaining permanent workforces and facilities. The VFA was ratified by the Philippine Senate in May 1999."
The above document also describes serious difficulties that US bases cause for the populace, especially regarding the behaviour of US troops towards women in oriental societies. Let us just say it is not a pretty picture. For interest's sake, here is a little piece to show you the filter through which you in the US recieve your news:
Extra! - March 1992 - Off-Base in the Philippines
" In covering the vote by the Philippines senate to close the U.S. naval base at Subic Bay, major U.S. newspapers contrasted the clamor of "anti-American nationalists" with the silent majority who wanted the bases to stay ...
The only trouble with these polls is that they later turned out to be imaginary. According to the Los Angeles Times' (9/23/91) Bob Drogin, "Embassy officials and Aquino aides leaked poll results to reporters purporting to show that 68 percent, 72 percent, even 81 percent of the Philippine people were pro-bases. The polls, however, never existed. 'I made the numbers up,' one American now concedes."
The papers that embraced the fraudulent polls did not offer retractions after the L.A. Times' revelation. The New York Times, in fact, repeated the disinformation two days later: "Polls indicate that the public strongly supports the American bases," Shenon wrote (9/25/91)."
Finally, I can mention a catalogue of CIA dirty tricks and political manipulation in the region that popped up as a result of searching for this information, but this discussion has wandered OT enough.
--Bruno--
Bruno:
I actually like your solution for removing Saddam. I also agree with you that defusing the Palestinian/Israel conflict is not only an important goal to create conditions for a peaceful and more prosperous ME, but would go along way to establishing American bona fides with Arab public opinion. I think you will undoubtedly agree that the conflict is a pretty tough nut to crack since Bill Clinton gave it a very sincere effort which ultimately failed.
The problem I see with your joint Arab military solution is that it might very well lose to Saddam's army. Most Arab countries are not very good at military force projection over distance. In my view, neighboring Arab states should be excluded from any such coalition since Iraqis would rightly fear another Syria/Lebanon scenario. For these reasons, the inclusion of other countries with a more robust military (probably the U.S.) would still be required in Iraq under your scenario to depose Saddam.
I was also wrong about you since I had you pegged as a dogmatic leftist, pacifist. You and I apparently agree that force will be occasionally be needed to maintain world order and that the preferred method of authorizng it is through the U.N. security counsel. We apparently disagree as to the threshhold for meeting a "just" exception standard to a U.N. resolution to use force.
Mark --
(I assume it was your post)
I agree that the Israel thing is a very difficult problem. The Clinton effort was considerable, and as a semi - impartial observer who leans toward anti US feelings normally ... I admit that I thought that the US was finally "mending its evil ways", so to speak. Now, I can see that the proposal was still unfair to the Palestinians, because they still didn't get their properties in Israel back ... but, given the reality on the ground ... the agreement was the best offer that they were likely to get. I really thought that realpolitik would have dictated the acceptance of the accord. The intifada was to my mind reckless and stupid, greatly discrediting the Israelis that actually wanted to reach a settlement. Today, the Jews have gone back into "Nazi mode" as a result.
Re. the joint Arab military solution: If you reread my post you will see I *did* advocate US military muscle in the solution. But of course, we are talking about might have beens. It might also have been the case that, seeing the entire Arab world united against him, and after the battering of 1991, his army destroyed ... that Saddam might have been receptive to some sort of amnesty proposal in exchange for a free Iraq. But again, this is speculation.
"You and I apparently agree that force will be occasionally be needed to maintain world order and that the preferred method of authorizng it is through the U.N. security counsel. We apparently disagree as to the threshhold for meeting a "just" exception standard to a U.N. resolution to use force."
Essentially ... yes.
--Bruno--
Mark --
(I assume it was your post)
I agree that the Israel thing is a very difficult problem. The Clinton effort was considerable, and as a semi - impartial observer who leans toward anti US feelings normally ... I admit that I thought that the US was finally "mending its evil ways", so to speak. Now, I can see that the proposal was still unfair to the Palestinians, because they still didn't get their properties in Israel back ... but, given the reality on the ground ... the agreement was the best offer that they were likely to get. I really thought that realpolitik would have dictated the acceptance of the accord. The intifada was to my mind reckless and stupid, greatly discrediting the Israelis that actually wanted to reach a settlement. Today, the Jews have gone back into "Nazi mode" as a result.
Re. the joint Arab military solution: If you reread my post you will see I *did* advocate US military muscle in the solution. But of course, we are talking about might have beens. It might also have been the case that, seeing the entire Arab world united against him, and after the battering of 1991, his army destroyed ... that Saddam might have been receptive to some sort of amnesty proposal in exchange for a free Iraq. But again, this is speculation.
"You and I apparently agree that force will be occasionally be needed to maintain world order and that the preferred method of authorizng it is through the U.N. security counsel. We apparently disagree as to the threshhold for meeting a "just" exception standard to a U.N. resolution to use force."
Essentially ... yes.
--Bruno--
Post a Comment
<< Home