« i knew which side my bread was buttered | Main | and then there she was, like double cherry pie, yeah there she was, like disco superfly »
You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows
by anna at 10:03 PM on April 09, 2003
Battle for Basra, Battle for Baghdad, bah! Hearing of The Ba'ath Party reminds me of gays frolicking in SF bathhouses. Likewise, when I hear CentCom, I envision a website frequented by rare penny collectors. Kurd rhyme with turd. Shiite sounds too much like shit.
I find it reminiscent of the last conflict, when we were forcibly familiarized with Uzbeks, Pashtuns and the Northern Alliance. Does anyone still remember the dashing Dr. Abdullah Abdullah?
Part of the problem with any war involving the U.S. military juggernaut is that it inevitably turns into a one-sided rout. The outcome is assured. In Kosovo, we pummeled those dastardly Serbs into submission without sustaining a single casualty. In Afghanistan we tricked local yokels into doing our bidding, with similar results. Now in Iraq, we see the supposed strongholds falling with little or no resistance. When enemy fighters glimpse US firepower, they wisely turn tail and run.
It's like Super Bowl Sunday. We're subjected to endless hype. The underdog stands a real chance of staging an upset of epic proportions. On any given Sunday anything is possible, after all. Then the favored team crushes the weaker squad and we all tune out after the halftime extravaganza. That's what I'd expect to happen now in Iraq.
I'd much prefer to watch those civil wars raging across Africa. There the sides are evenly matched and engaged in savage hand-to-hand combat where the outcome is far from assured. The victors put the vanquished on spits and barbecue them while raping their women. Now that's a show, albeit one you'll never see.
There's been so much saturation coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom that it's all but inescapable. I even saw one DNA expert calmly discussing how we'd need family members' bodies to positively identify badly charred bodies found amid the rubble of our latest attack. Only then could we determine whether Saddam is dead or alive. Shades of the endless Hunt for Osama, no?
With today's statue-tossing orgy, it seems clear Saddam's regime is finished. But my guess is that his personal fate will remain shrouded in mystery just like Osama's.
comments (25)
Shiite 'is' Shit in Irish, and I love when the headline scrolls on CNN write: activity in the HOLY SHIITE CITY of basra... etc. As for confirmation of a Saddam expiration, we have a better shot of Roddy'Rowdy'Piper winning a postmortem academy award for his starring role in 1988 c.e's THEY LIVE. Anna, it's funny how only you know exactly what I mean in my comments(example, my 'first' angry comment in MG's latest post). The masses seem to glaze over them immediately and render them fruitless rambling, simply because they see a 'curse' or 'politically incorrect' word. As for your increasingly daring new posts, the VILE opening of your latest post, is HONEST, CONFIDENT, and UNINTIMIDATED by the Collective Cowardice of the mass drones, therefore it holds the highest level of INTEGRITY. Much respect. It's the Silent Pact made by the masses, to be Pussies, as long as we're amongst Pussies. Lockheed knew this, and that's why Lockheed had the ability to be loaded with fucking money and success at a young age. Of course, the tables recently turned, because I have a lady to take care of now, hence less risk taking... hah, lockheed a drone?
by LOCKHEED at April 10, 2003 2:04 AM
Lockheed, 'shiite' isn't 'shit' in Irish, not even phonetically and being Irish I can say that! Sorry(asshole).
As for the post, Saddam was never the target, the oil was, wake up and smell it burning. Do you really think the US administration cares if he is dead or not? They only care about that in propaganda battle. When it comes to cold hard facts the US wanted control of the country and nothing more.
Like Hitler with the West, Eastern domination is on the minds of the right wing hawks in the US political arena and quite frankly Bush doesn't give a fuck about Congress so what's to stop them?
Oh and as for Bosnia you can thank British troops for trainning your troops in Urban Warfare, you can also stop making out the US did all the work there when in fact it was the British and Polish forces (you lot were last in).
In fact Anna don't post again till you get rid of that bitter yet patriotic attitude that has you spilling generalised right wing views onto the Internet, in my bitter left wing view.
I used to think this site was objective, well thought out posts inspired me to think about the topics presented, but lately it's bordered on passive racism and I won't be coming back to read anymore (not that you care in your sudo arrogance)
Been fun, sometimes amusing.
by o_O at April 10, 2003 4:42 AM
If this was about oil, how come the day after the southern oil fields were secured, we were at the U.N., having them set up the oil for food program? Why in the world would we fight a war to get oil and give the oil away before the war was even finished?
And if you're going to say this is about rebuilding contracts, the budgeted cost for just ONE month of war is twice as much as the projected rebuilding contracts. Why would the US spend a dollar to get back 50 cents?
And Bush doesn't care about Congress? He went before them last fall with the Iraqi war plan, and they nearly unanimously supported him. Democrats, republicans, everyone. I bet you are going to say Tony Blair doesn't care about Parliament either.
Be against the war if you want, but don't be stupid about it. But you can't just say whatever the hell you want without any proof or even the hint of logic and expect anyone to respect your opinion. If there is any prejudice involved in this situation, it is people like you with a blind hatred of the United States. People in this country have made a point to say being anti-war doesn't make you un-patriotic. And I agree. But neither does being anti-American somehow make you instantly noble.
You know what o_O, if you've been around this site for a while, you'd notice I'm always open for criticism, and actually listen to it. If people don't like a certain direction, and say so, I'll try change course. But you've left a grand total of three comments. Am I really supposed to care about anything you have to say? Am I really supposed to care that you’re leaving? Good fucking riddance. Asshole.
by mg at April 10, 2003 9:07 AM
"I'd much prefer to watch those civil wars raging across Africa. There the sides are evenly matched and engaged in savage hand-to-hand combat where the outcome is far from assured. The victors put the vanquished on spits and barbecue them while raping their women. Now that's a show, albeit one you'll never see."
Anna, you really piss me off sometimes, which is why I tend not to read your posts. Do you honestly feel that this is fucking witty by any stretch of the imagination? I don't know if you thought that was an eye-opening slap-in-the-face kind of paragraph, but all this does is make the people who actually care about that stuff think you are callous & ignorant, while the people who don't care about that stuff are just reinforced in their ability to completely seperate themselves from the reality of what goes on in the rest of the world. Have you ever been to Africa? How many of the people you interact with on a daily basis are African?
Lockheed, just because you place yourself outside of the confines of respecting anybody verbally doesn't mean you aren't brainwashed in your own ways. Half of your posts are garbled musings about the stock market, aren't they? You sound like a cog to me. I guess somehow you transcend that by being such a free thinker. You are the caged bird singing? But then, who am I to speculate? I'm not one of the "truly enlightened" that GET you. And for the record, I glaze over your comments because you are rarely on topic, use too many capital letters, and seem FAR more CONCERNED about getting a RISE out of PEOPLE than about COMMUNICATING ANYTHING.
You guys are so fucking cutting edge. Wow. Visionary.
by Linz at April 10, 2003 9:09 AM
And for the record, though I still think o_O is a troll, I do kind of agree with Linz.
by mg at April 10, 2003 9:17 AM
Whoa! I'm not even sure I want to step in this one. Awww fuck it.
Oh and as for Bosnia you can thank British troops for trainning your troops in Urban Warfare, you can also stop making out the US did all the work there when in fact it was the British and Polish forces (you lot were last in).
o_O, having served in Bosnia I am going to call bullshit. I didn't see any British troops training US troops in urban warfare while I was in country. Everyone had more pressing matters to attend to. There were some joint training excercises to keep troops on their toes but everyone was already proficient at their jobs and were just honing their skills. Urban warfare is taught at Camp McCall, NC just outside of Ft. Bragg. While you are somewhat correct you are still off base. The British SAS is the model the US Special Forces copied as their doctrine. The SAS troops helped set up the training and Standard Operating Procedure that is used, to this day, to graduate our Green Berets. Did they train us initially? Yes. Do they still train us? No. We do have multi-national war games where units can share any new tactics and improvements as we fight in an ever changing battlefield.
Also, the First Armored Division underestimated the difficulty of crossing the Sava river and was delayed getting in to Bosnia. That was one division. US Special Operations troops were on the ground well before the 1ST Armored even left Germany. I personally was in country three weeks before the 1st AD even set foot in Bosnia.
We worked side by side with British, Polish, Pakistani, French, Austrailian, German and many other countries troops during Operation Joint Endeavor. All did their parts and it was a multi-national effort. Hence the name of the operation.
Your other comments are entirely too stupid to even warrent a reply so I will refrain. I think before you advise others not to post their views you may want to check your facts before posting yours also.
by Ezy at April 10, 2003 10:21 AM
I came back out of interest, I wasn't surprised to find MG the great defender at his best.
Ok here goes...
First off, I'm not a blind hater of the US, not in the least bit. I am however a blind hater of arrogance, ignorance and administrations that seeks to try and police the rest of the world. So don't make me point out that tarring me with accusations that "I hate America" based only on the fact I disagree with some sentiments of the wider picture in this situation makes me a hater.
The US was in fact back at the UN, only for political reasons, nothing more. It was the US that suspended the program in the first place, placed sanctions on Iraq and made damn sure no other country did business either. Policing the world yet again.
Right wing hawks already have their eyes on Syria MG and you know it, a statement by Rumsfeld yesterday almost said so in not so many words. You realise that an act of aggression against Syria by the US will start a holy war in a big way. Bombing Iraq on a holy day (twice) has had the rest of the Middle East up in arms already, attacking and invading a second Eastern country will just kick it right off.
All the footage I've seen of people dancing in the streets has all be tight angle shots, close in. Why's that? I'll tell you why because MOST of the Iraqi's don't want the US there, they didn't want Saddam either but they sure as shit don't want a US troops or a US led Administration either. Already the US has lined up a "US friendly" Iraqi to take charge and has said that the UN will have no involvment of the political shaping Iraq. Is that the US's idea of a democracy? Install someone that will do business? Like in Afghanistan? Doesn't sound like democracy to me.
As for the re-building contracts you've made my argument for me already. Exactly! Why would the US spend all that money for no returns? My belief is the longer-term benefits will be reaped. The oil, rebuilding Iraq is for the US to do and profit from, that's the spoils of war. Mass debt in the US contradicts any notion that this was done for "world security". Iraq was never a threat and the rest of the world knows that, that's why they were against it, Saddam's regime was to weak in the first place to even attempt anything with another country let alone half way round the globe. Saddam has always kept away from terrorists and terrorism because he doesn't trust them or it as a form of anything. The Us's futile attempts to link him with various known terrorist factions was at the best an attempt to draw congress into a spin having right wing hawks squawking about "national security, 9/11" and invoking emotions in the US public to draw them onside creating enough public opinion to warrant congress to feel it was the will of the people this be done. Of course lets not forget the utter lack of respect for another countries culture albeit at the time overseen by a dictator. But that's the East, it runs on a feudal system, always has done and that I'm afraid is really what the West fears the most. It can't be controlled. Only democratic countries can be because with democracy comes protection, ease and political shielding and shaping affording it control as an asset.
Has it occurred to some people that the Iraqi's wanted to be free from Iraq but didn't want democracy? That in actual fact the system of warlords and so on actually works for the East? The unrest only occurs when the West sticks its nose in! How can a country last into the democracy run ever hope to have a real say? What will they do with their “controlled” freedom? Because after all that's what's going to happen, "yeah you can have your freedom, but... you can't do that" It doesn't take a scientist to see what's possibly going to come next, civil war.
The coalition has in fact stirred up a hornet’s nest now in the Middle East. The Kurds will now want there own state much to the detriment of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey and after all who can blame them? A repressed people, people that also fought Saddam and are OWED that much after they were brutally repressed when the US walked away last time. You really believe they'll just give up Kirkuk just like that? Because the coalition says so? I really doubt it. Turkey won't like it one bit and what's the US going to do if they won't give it up? Start on the Kurds? Let Turkey invade Northern Iraq? Holy war here we come.
You see, the US I think has acted without consideration, it just wanted to take out it's grudge against Saddam. Weapons of mass destruction my ass. It's obvious by the change of reason for this war that the US wanted it regardless of weapons of mass destruction and why is that? I've been asking that question since res' 1441 and I'm yet to be given a satisfactory answer. If the US were worried about global security and the owning, using and making of WMD's then Iraq would have been the last place to start that trail at. So why did it?
Tony Blair didn't care about Parliament, not in the beginning but he did when 75% of the British people & 47% of his own peers stood up and said no to the war, but Tony was foolishly already committed to backing Bush internationally so unfortunately his peers closed ranks around him and any who didn't were frightened into doing so and or given other reasons like the boost in our economy this would bring, see we don't lie to ourselves over here. Money was always one of the factors. I have to say though we mostly backed it as a tempering stick to the US. We were the ones to put a foot in the UN door as the US tried to slam it, brought you back to the table and we'll be the country to heal the international rifts this has caused. The last thing on Blair is when we hear how much this thing cost us, at that point he's going to sink or swim. That’s to be seen yet though. Facts are is he didn’t listen to the people that put him in power in the first place and the ramifications of that are still yet to be seen.
I'm sorry to say this MG because I've always respected your knowledge and opinion but you obviously don't take criticism very well at all, I mean dissenting into "Am I really supposed to care about anything you have to say? Am I really supposed to care that you’re leaving? Good fucking riddance. Asshole." Is, or I thought was, beneath you and just punctuated anything decent you have to say with a taint of childishness and lack of toleration for other people’s opinions, right or wrong as they maybe.
America isn't a hate thing for me, but the US hasn't won hearts and minds with this, you've lost dignity and respect by invading bombing and crushing a third world country which is only third world because the US made it that way.
I hope the US administration is proud with what's it thinks it's achieved.
(Ezy, I disagree but I can’t and won’t talk to you about it out of respect)
by o_O at April 10, 2003 3:56 PM
VISIONARY, linz? More like the Harsh Wall of Reality, toots. I was once like you are now, Linz, an Idealistic Impractical Child. I was surrounded with little tree-hugging ivy league trust fund children, that bored me. Tragedy on the personal level told me to get off my lazy ass and push myself to the limit. The comfort of 'We are the World' gets torn from you when you have a mouth to feed and protect other than your own. When the Cruelty of mere 'words' take on a physical form and kill the things you love. You can't be God to everyone linz, you'll fail, and eventually, when you get off your lazy romantic daydreaming ass, maybe you'll get hurt by some Ideal that you hold dear to yourself, something that you trusted... And I'm suprised you still get pulled into my little games. You hurt my feelings with your VICIOUS mockery of Lockheed. Ha! I knew you had it in you, babe. Now, look in the mirror. Your fairy tale is bound to end soon. But don't be afraid. You'll actually become Strong. And when you get the STRENGTH, then, maybe then, you can try to put your IDEALS into PRACTICE. Actually HELP the Disadvantaged, instead of just beating their drums, because it's Fashionable. That's worth nothing to them. And they don't give a fuck about your eloquent voice. Really. They need the basics. I help the disadvantaged, and it takes Money, Sacrifice, and one hell of a Rude Awakening. Go SELL YOUR BASS GUITAR, and give the money to the hungry for a start. BUT remember, YOU HAVE TO FEED YOURSELF FIRST.
by LOCKHEED at April 10, 2003 4:40 PM
Oh, and o_O, I'm not an asshole. Really. And you're full of bullocks and I'll shove bogroll down your fucking throat... some people just can't take a joke... jeepers.
by LOCKHEED at April 10, 2003 4:48 PM
Yeah, Rumsefeld says CONTINGENCY plans were in place regarding Syria. Why? Because the Syrians sent weapons and soldiers to Iraq (or at the very least, threatened to do so). The friend of my enemey is my enemy. Rumsefeld et al would be negligent to not make plans based on each of the numerous possibilities of the war. I'm sure there was a contingency regarding Turkey's entrance to the war, too, but that doesn't mean the US has any plans to invade them.
And, I don't know if you've been reading the news today, but the word on the Arab street is that they've lost trust in THEIR governments. They saw that if Saddam could so openly lie about the state of his government, that it was pretty damn likely that they were being lied too as well. If people in Jordan and Syria can be open to new ideas, why are you having trouble accepting anything besides what you came to the table with?
What else would the US have been doing at the UN - the UN is a political organization. Are we supposed to go there for ice cream? And the US didn't just GO to the UN about the Oil for food program, they IMMEDIATELY gave up control to the UN the day after they seized the southern fields. The US wants the UN to have no part in the rebuilding of Iraq, but gladly and willingly gave up the oil to them. This is not, has never been, abotu oil.
As for rebuilding costs, I stated a fact as to the costs of the war vs. the costs of rebuilding, yet of course facts means nothing to you. Bush asked congress for $75 billion for the war, not counting continued peace-keeping the mission. The UN estimates rebuilding contracts in the amount of $30 billion. These are facts. Iraq wont produce enough oil in the next DECADE to pay back the eventual costs of this war. The administration is full of business people, but you don't need to be an econmist to see that an outlay of billions of dollars, with a chance to break even years away, and the slim chance of future profit existing only in the impssibly long off future is a bad business move.
As for why the US would spend money without returns, well, have you ever given money to charity? Slipped a dollar to a homeless person? Given money money to Amnesty International? Did you expect monetary returns from it? If you can be charitable, and care about more than just yourself, why is it hard ot believe anyone else could, even a government?
Yes, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would want to be free but not live in a democracy. I can't think of anyone, given all the facts, who would choose to lve in a totalitarian governemt rather than a democratic one. I can believe that the Iraqi people, who wanted Saddam gone, will want the United States gone too. But now, they want us there. We are the only thing holding together a country without a government. With Saddam gone, there is no police, no economy, nothing. If it's a choice between Saddam and the US, they will choose the US. If it is a choice between chaos and the US, they will choose the US. But when it gets to be tim to choose between self-determination and the US, everyone knows what the answer will be. And that is why there are already plans in place to extricate ourselves from the country. This is not an occupation, and if it is, this is much closer to West Germany and Japan than the imperial regimes of the West the people of the middle East are used to.
Don't act is if Bush and Blair acted alone, when both had the support of their representative branchs. It doesn't matter if they signed on one horu before the war started, they signed on. If you want to believe that your country is the great arbiter of global peace, go ahead. The simple truth is that they wouldn't have that ability without the American's economic/military strength. The UK/US alliance is a strong one, you are right about that.
What? Should the US be ashamed of what's its done? Brought freedom to a people habitually tortured for 30 years. Yeah, that is nothing to be proud of. Just because things didn't work otu the way you would have liked doesn't mean they didn't turn out for the best.
You know, the US may not have won your heart and mind, but who cares. This was wasn't to liberate you. The only people's opinion who matters in this is the Iraqi people. And their hearts and minds have been one. Anything else anyone says, on one side or the other, is meaningless. It is no longer the time when anyone speaks for the Iraqi people but the Iraqi people. And today they are happy, free, and loving it.
I take criticism very well. But I don't take the rantings of people with no rspect or grasp on reality and who attack my authors very well. It's called circling the wagons - there is a cowboy term for you. I don't take kindly to someone who has never participated in the conversations acting like a tool and threatening to leave. I don't take kindly to people who choose to ignore the facts in favor of their own preconceived notions, and act like it's my fault for not bending to their will. You've managed to behave much more maturely with the second respnse though, even if you are still completly wrong.
by mg at April 10, 2003 4:57 PM
Lockheed, do you think I have a trust fund? Are you aware that I work for a nonprofit that gets medicine and health education to Third World countries? What do you know about my "lazy romantic daydreaming ass"? I just got promoted yesterday and in my new position will get to travel to these countries now. But you can bet the pay isn't the appeal here. What do you know about me putting my ideals into practice? What gave you the impression that I don't know about suffering in the rest of the world? The walls of my office are covered in pictures of people with disfiguring diseases.
Bitter people are all the same, with their monotone chant, "Oh, yes, one day you will understand and give up and succumb to the juggernaut of fate. You can't make a difference even if you try. Your starry eyes will fade fast." You just want to drag everyone else into your misery. Excuse me, your "realism." Seeing other people with hope & positivity irks you. Are you trying to convert me to your "Truth"?
Good luck, dude, I am an optimist for life. Some people do actually manage to be generally happy people for the duration of their stay on planet earth. Some of the most evolved and happy people I know have suffered huge personal tragedy. It just depends on whether you let life defeat you or not. I will do what I can while I'm here. I know it's not gonna solve everything but I'd rather do a little something for a few people than pretend I am powerless and scorn the people who try to move mountains.
I guess I don't get you. Are you serious with anything you say? You say that no one's getting you, then you tell o_O that you were just kidding, and to take a joke. What is your agenda? Do you think that you are doing humanity a service by trying to be so daring with your language choices and apparently insincere voicings of unpopular sentiments?
Sigh... you are damn entertaining. I stayed 20 minutes late typing this.
by Linz at April 10, 2003 5:22 PM
Man o man. All I can say is that rereading this post left me a little taken aback as well. And MG is right, this o_O is a rare contributor so I don't feel like I know him/her from Adam/Eve. But Linz and MG! That hurts. Maybe I am a callous and ignorant tool. I will try to do better, really. Cuz I enjoy posting here, and the give-and-take can be fun. This most certainly isn't and that was my bad. And yes, sex is good. Loved the posts above. PS: That was intended as an attention-grabbbing paragraph. All of that is true. Plus I read that the Congolese conflict has claimed more innocent lives than any since WWII. How come we never hear much about it? I won't even venture a guess.
by Anna at April 10, 2003 6:12 PM
I'll keep this brief, but more to come, Linz. I'm not trying to drag people into my misery. I am a RUGGED OPTIMIST. And I do small things that help people who need help grow and become stronger, and I agree, even if you just help yourself, that's a start.
Honestly, I thought my response to you was very OPTIMISTIC, because it was Practical, and although it's not a graceful hollywood triumph, little by little, the things Lockheed does to help those injustices(I worked non-profit in college, and now, because I busted my ass in the bond trading business to be an established cash cow, I donate a lot of money to public education, public access media, and a little to other causes, basic food and clothing, although my money for some reason, doesn't seem to add up that well in that field, which I still don't understand why). Frustrations are vented, but the actions I take are appreciated by those disadvantaged, and that makes me feel happy too, but overall, in the long run, a feeling of sorrow.
Well, I am distracted by company. I said once, that people like you give Lockheed hope, don't know if you ever read that comment. I have to go out and eat. Your points are valid, and I'm too distracted right now to come up with a witty defense or counter-argument. Maybe, I'll let it slide, until I fuck up at work again and get really nasty.
by LOCKHEED at April 10, 2003 6:32 PM
Oh and one more thing: o_O did come back. I for one hope you stay. Things are going to get more entertaining here. I may not be a part of that, but it will be more better.
by Anna at April 10, 2003 6:41 PM
Come on, you can argue without killing each other, can't you?
Everyone is allowed to write whatever he wants without other people shooting at him I think.
Anyway I'm sure this is not a real fight, more like 6 year-olds getting all mad at each other for no particular reason.
by necropethamenos at April 11, 2003 5:56 AM
It’s not proven that Syria sent the night specs and hornet missiles before or during the conflict, either way the US is just as guilty for arming people so it’s just a touch hypocritical to cry about that and politically speaking out of turn to publicly mention it in the way it was, real foreign policy has never and will never be the USA’s strong point. Also isn’t it true that the US is desperate to lead the political re-building of Iraq because in actual fact it wants to install a US friendly government in Iraq that isn’t going to be friendly to Iran or Anti American. The Shi’ites will almost defiantly vie for power. By creating many poles of Shiite influence in Iraq this may be the best way to keep them out of power, but it's a big gamble. One the US is already trying to take.
It is likely that U.S. administrators and soldiers will soon come into conflict with the Shi’ites who comprise 60 percent of Iraq. Whether this is peaceful political competition or something nastier is difficult to say. But sooner or later, the Shi'ite clergy will vie for power, not just in the south, but also for the entire country. Only a strategy of divide and conquer will keep an Iran-friendly regime out of Baghdad. And that is precisely what the United States is doing.
The fracas about who among Americans would be the shadow ministers is what's getting the attention of the news media, which always gravitates to the political squabble in the imperial city. What is far more important in the long run is how the Shi'ites are fragmented, what social and political forces might bring them together, how they interpret the war, their relations with Iran, and their view of Iraq as the political unit cobbled together by the British Foreign Office in the 1920s. The latter is pregnant with meaning for the Kurds in the north, who could again feel excluded from Iraqi governance and attempt to split away and give birth to their long-denied sovereign state, a move that would be aborted forcibly (and pre-emptively) by Turkey and the Shi’ites (60% of the Iraqi populace)
It is quite difficult to see how the Bush administration can prevent any or all of these effects of the war. Maintaining a pro-American regime – and pro-Israeli, too, a goal articulated by U.S. officials with cheeky candour – would seem to require a very long occupation while muscling into Iraqi politics to prevent anti-American clerics from coming to power. This is particularly necessary if, as expected, the United States begins to militate against Iran.
That is not the vision of Iraqi liberation we were offered, nor would it sit well with an increasingly insolent Arab world. It would strengthen the hand of the mullahs in Iran, where liberal reform is rickety, and it would unsettle others in the region in unpredictable ways. But Bush, who certainly resembles his idol Ronald Reagan in his string of good, luck, might yet enforce the strategy of conquer-and-divide, and avoid the catastrophe that lurks in the ruins of war.
The ruins of war come with a flip side and that I’m afraid is the spoils of it. The US had no choice in the eyes of the international community but to hand over provisional control of the Oil fields to the UN, not doing that would have been political suicide. However this doesn’t instantly mean that oil was not a major factor in this situation. Sanctions on Iraq actually meant that a large oil source was not being tapped properly and in that happening the price of US oil was going up, the profits coming down. The US is with out a doubt in economic crisis since the collapse of many markets in the last few years and what better way to boost the economy then firstly a war and secondly the longer term goals of more free flowing oil imports and petro-chemical production. Basically the US wants to sit as the middlemen between the East and the West in oil. I find it hard to see why a lot of Americans can’t see this very easy to see fact, including you.
I’m a PHD graduate in Politics and Sociology (So that’s Dr to you) and so I’d like to point out that my opinions aren’t based on a simple fresh air media debate, my opinion is based on the political history and current climate in the world both sociologically and politically and that’s where that New Yorker arrogance lets you down MG. See nobody can possibly persuade you otherwise because in actual fact you’re not open to debate or even other notions, you rely on facts, very good, but presented by whom? The media? Who are either in the pocket of the administration or else far to over the other side to give you an objective viewpoint. Or a poll? Who’s research or findings are based solely within a small time frame where past events have no bearing on the present situation because it’s feelings felt where mostly middle America is asked the questions and not the majority. Or do you rely on what you see and if so what is it you see? Because from where I’m standing you like to quote this and that but it really isn’t objective enough to warrant a debate, you’re simply telling me, nothing less. It points out to me that in actual fact you know very little about Eastern politics, possibly politics in general bar the US’s, the way in which it works and how the West has played major roles in making today’s mess right back to the 1920’s when us, the British installed a king in Iraq. You reply mostly on facts based on what you read or see in the media, not what’s actually happening, has happened in the past and or may happen in the future. I really don’t want to decent into a cuss but your knowledge of the wider picture here is very small. It’s all good and well to eat that apple pie and back the troops, hell I back the troops to but I don’t back the war or the chess game the US is trying to play in the East. The ramifications of what has happened will be ringing for the next decade if not longer, yet more destabilisation within the Eastern Arab countries all brought about by the West’s fear of a United East and mixed up with desperate bid to kick-start the US economy again.
“If you want to believe that your country is the great arbiter of global peace, go ahead. The simple truth is that they wouldn't have that ability without the American's economic/military strength. The UK/US alliance is a strong one, you are right about that.”
That’s about the most arrogant statement I’ve seen you make yet. I think you’ll find without us you wouldn’t have that Military strength (you have no tactical position on the world without us and you use our military templates to train, deploy and execute any military operations) and as for economics most of your infrastructure is built using British Technology, hell most of your Military tech comes from BAE and Marconi, British Firms. Wise up and wise up to the fact we are the tempering stick of the world, whether you like it or not.
I don’t think the US should be ashamed in so many words but I do feel that it’s going to have to be consistent now and how is the US going to do that without being seen to be an aggressive and invading country, the rest of the world will only tolerate it for so long and you can think that you have the firepower to fight all the world but in reality you simply don’t. Hell you don’t even have it to fight the entire east and there not even kitted up properly, the West is. The US should take the advice it’s been handed for over 20 years, sort out your foreign policy before you really upset the rest of the world indefinitely. You almost did it this time and if it weren’t for us, the British again, then it’s easy to see you would have.
Your entitled to your opinion, but if you’re going to firstly simply dismiss me because I don’t agree with you then don’t decent into cussing me and secondly if you’re going to try to circumvent my opinion by simply suggesting I don’t know what I am talking about make sure that your sure I don’t. I think I can safely without arrogance say I know more about the politics of this situation then you could ever understand and maybe for once you might respect the knowledge someone else has and perhaps think about that knowledge before assuming as always your more knowledgeable then anyone else. I never have ignored the facts MG, I leave that up to people like Lockheed who can come see me whenever he likes to ram toilet roll down my throat.
Lockheed, you’re the Internet keyboard warrior everyone loves to hate so don’t think it’s big of you to give me that macho bullshit, I can take care of myself pretty well verbally and physically. Only those that shout about it fear it.
Lastly in respect to the Iraq thing, I’m not mad, angry or bitter about any country or anything else concerning it, I’m simply saddened by the fact that an act of war came about and peaceful means failed, on both sides, the East and the West. Everyone in the situation played a part in it’s coming about, some countries made the right move other didn’t divides have formed and it’s a long road back, let’s hope idiots don’t hamper that any more then is necessary.
Peace.
by o_O at April 11, 2003 7:42 AM
Wow. Can we then assume that my thoughtless drivel didn't drive an avid reader and I must say astute commentator away? That would indeed make my day off and dissuade me from deleting this entire horrendous post from the site. Which I'm tempted to do, because in retrospect it sucks.
by Anna at April 11, 2003 7:57 AM
I'll still be reading, perhaps commenting, hopefully with substance.
Keep me entertained ;)
by o_O at April 11, 2003 9:06 AM
I used to be the smooth quiet ass-kicker, but now, I don't have to be. When Lockheed sees outrageous injustice, he becomes a LOUD-MOUTH shouting ASS-KICKER. Got my ass kicked today, got thrown out of my office. Told to go home. I lost them $100,000 us. dollars, by 1030am est. Oops. Lockheed is going to disappear soon...
by LOCKHEED at April 11, 2003 11:49 AM
Hey o_O, do you not see the irony in calling me arogant, but choosing to ignore the facts I mentioned because you've got a PhD and an opinion? I'm sorry, but I don't care how many letters you've got after your name, speculation is not fact. Anna may be sucking up to you now, but I still think your an ass.
by mg at April 11, 2003 2:59 PM
It's not proven that Syria sent the night specs and hornet missiles before or during the conflict, either way the US is just as guilty for arming people so it's just a touch hypocritical to cry
I wasn't crying about anything. I merely stated the fact if that Syria is proven to have sent aid to the Iraqi military during the war, then the United States would be justified turning toward them in a militaristic manner. The same way it would have been understandable for Iran to declare war on the US when we provided arms to Iraq during their war, or how Germany/Japan declared war on the US after years of us providing arms to the UK. As I said, the friend of my enemy is my enemy - this rule applies to both sides of the conflict.
Also isn't it true that the US is desperate to lead the political re-building of Iraq because in actual fact it wants to install a US friendly government in Iraq that isn't going to be friendly to Iran or Anti American.
Wait, you are saying that the United States doesn't want the new government in Iraq to be hostile towards us? Holy shit, what a revelation, all that money you've spent on the PhD sure seems to have paid off. Listen, the US has a long history of enabling leaders to take power, only to have them stab us in the back later. What are you going to do though, that's what happens when you allow a nation to determine it's own future. Sure, it'd be nice if the government created in Iraq was friendly to the US, but if it turns out not to be, or an eventual adminstration takes over that is no longer friendly, I'd wager we aren't likely to do much about it. See Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, etc.
Sooner or later, the Shi'ite clergy will vie for power, not just in the south, but also for the entire country. Only a strategy of divide and conquer will keep an Iran-friendly regime out of Baghdad. And that is precisely what the United States is doing.
Really? When has the US done this? Show me an example. If anything, the US has gone out of its way to ensure a unilateral government in the new Iraq. If the US wanted, they could have said to the Kurds, fight with us, and you get your own country. They could have said the same thing to the Shi'ites in the south. Both would have surely taken us up on that offer, considering the oil fields are in the north and south, and the Kurds and Shi'ites would have complete countrol, instead of having to share it with the rest of Iraq. Yet, we've assured the international community that whatever the future of Iraq holds, it will be a unified Iraq. How is that a divide and conquer policy? In fact, from what I've read about the Kurdish leaders, they'd agreed, before the war started, not to make motions toward their own nation state. They've agreed to work within the other factions vying for power. I haven't heard anything yet in that regard about the Shi'ites, but that doesn't mean those discussions haven't taken place.
It is quite difficult to see how the Bush administration can prevent any or all of these effects of the war. Maintaining a pro-American regime - and pro-Israeli, too, a goal articulated by U.S. officials with cheeky candour - would seem to require a very long occupation while muscling into Iraqi politics to prevent anti-American clerics from coming to power. This is particularly necessary if, as expected, the United States begins to militate against Iran.
The US's biggest hawk, Wolfowitz, has already publicly stated that US forces will remain in Iraq for no more than two years, probably less. Considering we are still in Germany, a two year "occupation" can hardly be considered long. Also, you claim to know more about politics than I do, yet you posit that the US has its aim set on Iran. The theocracy in Iran is the weakest it has been since it was reinstalled to power. The US would be unwise to take any sort of military action there, since it is very likely that they'll have their own (peaceful) regime change within a decade. Especially now with the example if Iraq, there is an even greater possibility that Iran will topple on its own. Syria is another story though.
That is not the vision of Iraqi liberation we were offered,
It is also not a vision of Iraqi liberation that has occurred. Before you start saying the US has done this or that, how about to we wait to see if the US does this or that. You can assume the worst, but until it happens it is just that, an assumption.
nor would it sit well with an increasingly insolent Arab world.
Have you been reading the news recently? Even Al-Jazeera seems in shock about the lies of the Iraqi regime. The people, as much as everyone expected them to be up in arms about a western army in a Arab capital, have been generally very positive toward the way the war has shaken out. Again, how about we wait a while to see how the Arab world actual reacts to Iraq's future before we go putting words in their mouth.
But Bush, who certainly resembles his idol Ronald Reagan in his string of good, luck, might yet enforce the strategy of conquer-and-divide, and avoid the catastrophe that lurks in the ruins of war.
Ah, there it is, the anti-Bush sentiments. OF course, his administrations was just lucky that the war shaped up like it did. And if things turn out better than you expect in regards to Iraqs rebuilding, that'll just be luck too. And if this war really does bring stability to the Middle East, again, just chalk it up to luck. Man, I am so sick of people underestimating the president, his cabinet of highly skilled, highly educated, and highly experienced cabinet. You have a PhD, well, so do most of them. Plus, they have decades of experience dealing with international politics. Yet, your opinions are to be held in the utmost regard, and they've just been terribly lucky. Whatever.
The US had no choice in the eyes of the international community but to hand over provisional control of the Oil fields to the UN, not doing that would have been political suicide.
You've got to be kidding me. If they'd kept the oil, that would prove it was oil about oil. Giving up the oil, well, that proves this was all about oil too. You know what, I agree, it would have been political suicide to keep the oil, that is why we gave it up. See, America may think the UN dropped the ball in enforcing its resoltutions, but we do understand that just because we dropped some bombs, that doesn't mean we can take their oil. This has ALL been about politics. Claiming giving the oil back is a political move sort of betrays your earlier argument that the administration is full of lucky imbeciles. They know what they are doing, even if none of the rest of us do.
Sanctions on Iraq actually meant that a large oil source was not being tapped properly and in that happening the price of US oil was going up, the profits coming down.
Again, you claim to know more than me, but do you know that under the oil for food program, Iraq was allowed to produce unlimited amounts of oil? They chose not to. Did you know that, despite the sanctions, more than 40% of Iraq's exports are purchased by the US? Having a free Iraq will drive the prices of oil up, not down. The west was getting Iraq's oil at a steep discount, compared to what we pay for the exact same product from their neighbor Saudi Arabia.
The US is with out a doubt in economic crisis since the collapse of many markets in the last few years
Do you understand economic cycles? Do you understand that the entire world is currently on the downward bit of one of those economic cycles? Do you know that, compared to the rest of the world, the US has a much stronger economy? Lower inflation, lower unemployment, and higher % increase in GDP over the last couple years than most of the other major economies. The economy isn't great, but it's hardly a crisis.
Basically the US wants to sit as the middlemen between the East and the West in oil. I find it hard to see why a lot of Americans can't see this very easy to see fact, including you.
Okay, explain to me why, if the US wanted to be the middleman for oil to the world, why we haven't espressed more interest in Argentina, Venezuela or Mexico? Why haven't we begun drilling in Alaska? We actually own Alaska. We pretty much could walk into Argentina and take whatever we wanted without anyone in the world caring. Why would we go to Iraq, risk our lives now and over the years needed to secure our interests, risk political reprisal in the west, and terrorist reprisal from the Muslim world? It makes NO sense.
New Yorker arrogance lets you down MG.
This is the point I'm obligated to point out how you know absolutely nothing about me. Again, you are making assumptions based on very little factual evidence.
See nobody can possibly persuade you otherwise because in actual fact you're not open to debate or even other notions, you rely on facts, very good, but presented by whom? The media?
Where else am I supposed to get my facts from? You? You may distrust the "media" but I don't. If someone presents to me a fact, based on multiple sources, I will believe it until given evidence that I shouldn't. And, if you think I read only US media, you are mistaken. I read new from the US, UK, Australia, Israel, Al Jazeera, and every other source that comes before my face. I don't just watch CNN and believe everything I see. In fact, I don't even watch CNN.
from where I'm standing you like to quote this and that but it really isn't objective enough to warrant a debate, you're simply telling me, nothing less.
If you want, in the future, I'll provide sources from every fact I state. I only ask that in return, you actually state facts, and provide sources, instead of just stating your opinion and expecting me to believe it because, gosh darn it, your earnest and you've got a PhD.
It points out to me that in actual fact you know very little about Eastern politics,
Nope, wrong again. When I formulate my arguments here, anything I don't already know, I will look up to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass. If I find out the facts don't back up my assumptions, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, and have many occasions. If you've been around for any length of time, you are likely to have noticed I don't report conjecture as fact, I don't state an opinion without explaining how I came about that opinion, and I do provide links to sources when I think it's necessary. You've done none of those things.
You reply mostly on facts based on what you read or see in the media, not what's actually happening, has happened in the past and or may happen in the future.
What else should I base my facts on? What do you base your facts on? Have you been in Iraq since 1920? Even if you have, you are what is called in journalism circles as a "single source." Every respectable news source will require it's reporters to provide two sources (or one, if it is a first hand source), for all news. I think I'm pretty safe believing what I read and see in the news, especially since I'll usually use a second news source to back up what I've read in the first. How exactly do you come by your facts?
The US should take the advice it's been handed for over 20 years, sort out your foreign policy before you really upset the rest of the world indefinitely. You almost did it this time and if it weren't for us, the British again, then it's easy to see you would have.
Yes, thank god for the British. Seriously. The US is full of bumbling idiots, but that god amongst men, Tony Blair, manages to save our ass every time.
Your entitled to your opinion, but if you're going to firstly simply dismiss me because I don't agree
I'm not dismissing you because I don't agree with your opinion, I'm dismissing you because it is merely that, your opinion. You've got the fancy PhD, why not provide some factual basis for the claims you are making? Maybe then I'll give your argument an honest evaluation.
by mg at April 11, 2003 4:01 PM
~eyes wide in awe~
WELL SAID!
WOW!
Truly amazing MG!
You certainly seem to know your shit!
I'll give a "ditto" ! My thoughts exactly...saves me from having to re-write the whole thing in some paraphrased form!
~applauds, nodding emphatically~
You totally ROCK!
(No, I am not sucking up either, grinzzz sheepishly)
~licks her lips~
Pantera!!
by Pantera at April 11, 2003 5:35 PM
Rock on MG.
by Ezy at April 11, 2003 6:02 PM
All I want to know is how you guys do that cool thing with the grey text box. It makes all your arguments seem so much more convincing.
by Anna at April 11, 2003 6:55 PM
<blockquote>Text to be quoted</blockquote>
by mg at April 11, 2003 8:02 PM