|
Some Don’t Count
original size
Reading the NYT article I add up at least nine dead and at least nineteen wounded in "Copter Crash and Attack in Basra" and more dead and wounded elsewhere. Five of them children.
Witnesses, including an owner of one of the houses, reported seeing five bodies, though Maj. Sebastian Muntz, a spokesman for the British military in Basra, did not confirm the number of casualties or say how many people were on board. Defense Secretary Des Browne of Britain later confirmed that "a number of British service personnel" had been killed in the crash.
[…]
At Basra Hospital, an official said that at least four Iraqis, including two children, were killed and more than 19 wounded in the violence after the crash. Major Muntz said a small number of live rounds were fired by British troops in self-defense, but he said he did not know whether they caused any casualties.
[…]
Sunni Arab insurgents struck Saturday as well. A suicide bomber dressed as an Iraqi Army officer walked into a base in western Tikrit, a city north of Baghdad, and blew himself up around 8 a.m., officials said, killing three army officers and wounding one.
[…]
Two children were killed and one was wounded in Shuala, the Shiite slum in northern Baghdad, when a rocket struck the area around 9:30 a.m., the ministry official said.
An American soldier was killed in Baghdad on Friday when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb, the American military said Saturday.
Up to 5 Die in British Copter Crash and Attack in Basra
NYT, May 6, 2006, 4:00pm
For the headline writer, some killed people obviously just do not count.
The Humpty I was referring to was the Baathist tyranny, and the answer is that there will be no re-Baathification that you referred to. Meanwhile the elected representatives are asking for the troops to stay, but you believe they have to be ignored and then say nothing about the Al Qaeda sorts from neighboring
countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who can come in and have a grand old time blowing up Islamists that they don’t happen to like (remember Al Zaqari).
There is no ‘secular Shiite government’ but rather a government of broad national unity, and I am sorry but I don’t understand the rest of your post so I will just offer these thoughts on ‘The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It’ post 18. I posted most of this some time ago but as it covers the five points and raises some more that are closely related I hope it addresses what is the thrust of your post, that appears to be opposition to all post WW2 US policies as they relate to the Middle East in particular (policies that have all that time been opposed by genuine leftists and progressives of all stripes).
Dear Cornered;
A major issue that immediately faces anti-racist activists, world-wide, is what stance to take on the ‘new’ war in Iraq. The ‘old’ war has now ended, so it’s only of historical interest and that’s fine for those who are interested. But anti-racist activists have to address the ‘new’ war to the extent that it has a racial or sectarian underpinning, and it overwhelmingly is so underpinned.
Who the political representatives of the Iraqi masses are has now been conclusively established. It is now clear that the political leadership is not considered by the vast majority to be ‘collaborators’ or any other such term of abuse.
Millions of the Iraqi peoples’ have voted in an undisputed, free and fair election process ending in all important proportional representation. These political representatives do speak for their constituents, be they Kurds, Arabs (either Shia or Sunni), Turkomen, Assyrians, or various Christians and atheists. The various peoples’ have voted under a constitution that they approved, and that has established the formal equality of all the peoples’, and both sexes, before the law.
A legitimate Iraqi government (one of national unity what is more, rather than biggest take all) is now being established after the protracted negotiations between these legitimate political representatives and it is a foregone conclusion (for those of us who know what stance the major parties are taking) that this government will call for continued military and economic assistance.
Local and foreign racists and sectarians of the most vicious kinds from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and so forth together with residual Baathists (with a shockingly racist history) are now going to wage their vicious racist war against the Iraqi peoples’ who are trying to build a country based on their non-racist constitution.
Anti-racist activists, irrespective of what our stance has been up-to-date, now have to come to terms with the new reality. It is as profound a turnaround for some as was the ending of the America First movement after 07/12/1942.
We are all seeing the same news and the masses know that the Iraqi peoples’ had three elections in 2005, ending in a very good result for them. So, just as America First collapsed with the attack on Peal Harbour the new ‘America first’ thinking has to collapse now.Yet this collapse is occurring while the masses are still overwhelmingly blind to the real reason the U.S. ruling elite decided to go to war in Iraq.
Bush is no lefty, because he is waging this war in the interests of his class, and it is only incidentally in the interests of the oppressed peoples’ in the Middle East. He has become a progressive-right-winger because history thrust greatness upon him. He asked the big questions that had to be asked, after 9/11.
What more can they do to us? …Well, Mr. President they will, if not stopped, eventually get hold of a nuke and destroy Washington or some other city.
What strategy must we adopt to defeat them? Mr. President we must set down policies to turn every country in the world into a modern (bourgeois) democracy. If all countries look, and smell like Sweden and France, we will have won. The world needs sewerage systems for the smell, and industrialization for the sewerage systems; it needs education for the industrialization, and it needs basic bourgeois political freedoms to permit the education… We must stop doing what we have been doing for the whole post WW2 period. We must reverse all our old policies. These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes. Mr. President there is no other way of winning this war…. (At least that is what I would tell him if I was in the war cabinet)
If you want to think more about these sorts of issues, then see the Draining the swamp thread in the forum, or democracy was intended for Iraq at; http://www.lastsuperpower.net/
The debate on the issue of Iraq becoming a bourgeois democracy should be over.
Of cause the war was ‘illegal’. Laws are created by revolutions; revolutions are not created by laws! Saddam was the lawful Tyrant of Iraq and overthrowing tyranny is illegal, as is every revolution until that revolution establishes its law. The UN now recognizes the Iraqi government that is trying the Tyrant Saddam!
History lessons, from pseudo leftists, about how the US ruling class had to be tricked into a war of liberation with lies, is not relevant for anti racist forces, who have to deal with the current realities anyway.
The situation is now one of complete collapse for the ‘peace movement’ because we are dealing with a new war! So get behind the masses of the brave Iraqi people that turned out to vote for political representation; and above all deal with those representatives in a respectful non racist manner.
Do not avoid the fact that the Kurds (about 20%) and the Shia (about 60%) used to be under the rule of the racist Arab Sunni tyranny. That is 80% of the Iraqi population let alone the vast majority of democratically minded Sunni Arabs who have been liberated.
There is no other way to win the so called war on terror than to spread bourgeois democracy across the whole planet. Doing things in the old way, that is, since ww2, spreading repression and terror throughout the world is what has failed and those old discredited policies have to be junked like the garbage they are and always were.
Pretending that millions of Iraqis are not bravely voting and electing legitimate political representatives is a racist joke. This voting is happening while Zionists are being defeated and withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank (on the way to being totally pushed out of the West Bank). Not to notice this is peculiar.
The Baathists, of Syria, have been forced to get their troops out of Lebanon and the broad democratic movement is stirring across the whole region. All this yet some still do not notice. Some may think that 80% of the Iraqi people are being defrauded of legitimate representation rather than for the first time actually having a meaningful vote.
For those that don’t give a toss about democracy or liberation or the Middle East, fine.
But understand this; it is all being done because it is the only way to defeat the enemy of all modernity that dramatically came to your attention as of 9/11.
The swamp that breeds the mosquitoes must be drained, and the old U.S. policies, that created and supported the existence of that swamp has to be abandoned.
Progressive humanity is not going to just keep killing an endless stream of mosquitoes for ever, as people that cannot think strategically would have us do. Nor are we going to pretend that these mosquitoes do not need destroying. They do!!
And I do not find anything inherently racist about inflicting 30,000+ civilian casualties in Iraq in order to bring them their democracy, after former U.S. policies had so dramatically failed. If the Iraqi peoples had to overthrow the Baathist tyranny themselves (while it remained armed to the teeth with tanks, artillery helicopter gun ships, intact command and control etc then the casualties would be gigantic, and so called ‘anti war’ people must face up to those casualties as well as the casualties of doing nothing, so spread the numbers of casualties and share the moral high ground because you don’t have one to yourself.
Tyranny does not vanish of its own accord.
Only people who have not thought about what a revolution in the Middle East will require could think that these levels of casualties could be bettered by some other method of overthrowing Baathism and then standing up to the same types as oppressed the Afghan peoples and delivered the world 9/11. Industrialized democracies now have one more armed ally and a dangerous enemy on the way to being dispatched.
The Iraqi political leadership elected by the vast majority are asking for the Coalition troops to remain and help the Iraqi peoples deal with this fight against the enemies of modernity. Internationalists must deal with this.
So I am claiming that:
Because ‘the new Iraqi government represents the will of the Iraqi people’ (see my article Chomsky – Drowning not Waving. http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/973483722245
That will is expressed in genuine political representation such that ‘The new Iraqi government is not a puppet state[and is therefore] (essentially free from self-interested influence by its invaders[though I would say liberators])
Therefore ‘The liberation of Iraq was a success in terms of creating beneficial political change [and it was never in doubt that a) these Iraqi peoples wanted liberation from the Baathists b) have rejected the Al Qaeda sorts that continue to bomb them by defying them and turning out to vote in the face of their threats] and that ‘The continued presence of U.S. (and whatever-is-left-of-the-coalition) troops in Iraq is not inconsistent with the idea that Iraq has been liberated and the people are now free’ anymore that US troops in Germany and Japan.
Finally I believe that ‘The new Iraqi government is working’ in the only way that it can and that is slowly and deliberatively. Those experienced politicians negotiating can not accept just talk of good intentions but must see actual results on the ground.
‘On a slightly different topic: I went and looked at your website. Contrary to what you say, I have indeed seen that sort of thing before — the site is very similar to a number of libertarian screed-sites I have seen in the past. The difference is that libertarians champion greed in the name of liberty, whereas you champion violence.’
You say myself and others champion violence at http://www.lastsuperpower.net/ I think that’s just a cheap shot, but I do believe that ‘Where the broom does not reach the dust will not vanish of its own accord.’
For example I support US involvement in WW2 do you?
Posted by: patrickm | May 7 2006 10:35 utc | 22
I don’t think patrickm should be banned. why not let someone argue a case, even if others disagree. It’s a good thing for everyone to make a case.
but let patrickm back up his posts with facts that can be verified.
the issues I have trouble with in all the talk of “democratizing” the rest of the world are these:
your talk that laws don’t matter when you are having a revolution is really creepy…because the laws that don’t apply, apparently, are the laws in this country that were put together to create and maintain democratic institutions. Is the irony, or rather the lying bullshit behind such a rationalization not apparent to you?
(and last time I looked, it seems like over 60% of the American public think that Iraq was and is a mistake…so does that make the majority of the country behind Pat Buchanan? I don’t think so.)
And you cannot say that ppl who oppose the strategy in Iraq are pseudo-pacifists if the objection is about the best way to deal with terrorism. The WWII analogy doesn’t fit either, since Saddam, asshole that he was, did not attack us. I supported going into Afghanistan (and still do, tho not all here do). Why go to Iraq? Afghanistan isn’t “democractized.” Who holds power outside of Kabul? War lords, as far as I understand. And the Taliban is recouping.
can you impose democracy upon a nation, or does such an impulse have to come from within that population in order to be successful? are you saying that, as a step in imposing democracy, it’s necessary to go through a backward motion for women…who are now facing a society that is much worse for them in Iraq? Why invade a secular tyrant? Why not fight the “swamp dwellers” in Afghanistan, where the Taliban let Osama live? why not draw them there? Is it b/c, as Rummy is quoted as saying, there were no good “targets” in Afghanistan? Is that something a person intent on democracy would say–or is that the statement of a person who used war as a way to maintain power?
where has democracy been imposed? –Germany isn’t an answer b/c the Weimar was an attempt that failed, in great part b/c Germany failed in WWI, and the rest of europe wanted them to pay a steep price, and everyone in power was afraid of Russia exporting its bolshevism. –there WERE movements within that country for communism, socialism, democracy, military rule…and the nationalism of Hitler beat the shit out of the internationalism of everything else with help from the military.
is the history of American involvement in Central and South America a similar “swamp” that America had to drain? by any means necessary that were “on the table” at that time? what was the outcome of that imposition of America’s view of “democracy” in that part of the world?
what’s happening now that America’s attention is elsewhere?
It seems they’re having real elections and voting in the candidates who rally behind a distinctly South American idea of Simon Bolivarism as a type of “people power.”
Negroponte was in Central America. Abrams, Poindexter, –all the failed and criminal factions of the right wing have moved from the southern hemisphere of the Americas to Iraq. Why should I think they can perform this miracle of “democracy?”
Weren’t they all the same architects of the foreign policy that you claim must be undone? Aren’t they pursuing their objectives in the same way now?
why should Iranians have any reason to align with the U.S. when they remember all too well the history of democracy in Iran…it was the U.S./Brits that overthrew Mossadeq and installed the Shah to “modernize” Iran (and keep them from nationalizing oil.)
The British Petroleum Co. was the one hiding profits and cheating the Iranians in the oil deal that led to nationalization of oil…and the jackals who came in to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Their memory of these events is not hazy, like it is for Americans…if known at all. This is part of their recent history that seemed to indicate bad faith on the part of the anglo world.
The Shah forced changes on part of the population that it didn’t want. His secret police, trained by the U.S. inforced his dictates.
Who does the U.S. back for power in Iran now? Why should Iranians support a U.S. invasion now, considering what they’ve known before?
You rightfully say that U.S. foreign policy in the region has been a mess…what makes you think this current gang in the WH will do anything better…esp. if you look at the track record of Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Negroponte, and on and on.
Bush is a non-issue. God talks to him…probably Cheney on a hidden microphone, lol, but Bush is really a non-issue because he is the front-man…the Scott McClellan behind all the Scott McClellans.
So, was civil war part of the strategy of democracy? Why did Wolfie immediately try to install Chalabi, the U.S. front man, and fail miserably because they didn’t understand that the Iraqis detested this person — and they associate him with corruption because of his asso. with the neocons?
I’m basing that on Riverbend’s comments and the reaction to Chalabi when he tried to put himself forward as the savior of Iraq. –seems he was resoundingly rejected so he had to insert himself in the power structure through appointment.
Treating an act of terrorism as a reason to start WWIII seems too much like WWI to me…and the outcome of that one wasn’t decided until 1946 or so. BUT, the difference is that the fight came from within (the comparison would be the war between Iran and Iraq in the late 80s)
I guess I find it hard to believe that the policy set forth will work, whether or not it’s a ruse to install all those strategic bases in Iraq or whatever.
And as far as my own country…I find the actions of this administration so disturbing that I think they’re throwing out the baby with the swamp water in this nation. I think we have successsful examples of ways to deal with terrorism as a crime, ways that do not escalate the acts of terrorists.
In other words, my fear that a terrorist may do something worse is amplified by the current policy, not assuaged. And where does Saudi Arabia come into all this?
If you expect the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt, then do you also expect the Islamic nationalists in the ISI to take power in nuke-capable Pakistan?
I have another question for you: are you a member of a religious group that believes in proselytizing? do you see the acts in iraq as a form of political missionary work? just curious.
Posted by: fauxreal | May 7 2006 14:28 utc | 29
first- I agree that it is ridiculous to call you subhuman for making an argument that supports a foreign policy idea grounded in imperialism (which is how the site you directed me to refers to US policy…I’m not using the word as some sort of invective.)
here’s the intro I read: This site was established by leftwingers who support the war in Iraq. We called it “last superpower” because we believe that US imperialism is weaker than it has ever been before and is no longer the almighty superpower it makes itself out to be
..just as I think that calling someone who invests in a global economy a “little eichmann” is beyond the pale –people are upset about the suffering of other people that seems to be the outcome of elite theory foreign economic and military policy.
and people are scared by the seeming nonchalance with which BushCo will talk about use of nuclear weapons (and won’t talk about use of depleted uranium for weapons.)
–btw, have you ever talked to any of the soldiers from Gulf War I who now suffer from the effects of those depleted uranium weapons? I have. I heard a now-retired officer talk about how the bullets work (with slides), how the army has covered up and denied the impact of those weapons, and has denied care to veterans because of, and how that man is slowly dying…as others in his inspection team had already died from the use of that kind of weaponry. is it “pseudo-left” to think that it’s also inhumane to use such weapons around civilians, much less our own army? or anyone else’s, for that matter…but that’s a “side issue.”
anyway, I agree with the position on your site that the US is no longer the superpower it pretends to be. have you ever read Emmanuel Todd’s After the Empire? –don’t go by the reviews on amazon, you should check it out for yourself. but Todd’s premise is that the US is resorting to attacking not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakenss..trying to maintain a hegemony that actually has no useful purpose now (mho) that the USSR is not an empire…and that empires don’t recognize they are no longer sustainable until after their time is past.
from patrickm-
The Bush war cabinet was working on strategy after 9/11; if people do not realize this they can not be taken seriously; and despite being at war with Islamists of the Taliban and AlQaeda varieties they decided to go to war with Baathism and destroy it. Whatever the reason was for the war we can be sure it was not from any immediate threat from WMD. But everybody including the French and German ruling class believed Saddam had some degree of WMD program that would be uncovered.
of course ppl think they were working on a strategy. Rummy stated what you said…drain the swamp, clean it all up…as tho talking about remaking southern Louisiana (oops, wrong analogy…we see how that worked…) but they were also working on a strategy of taking out Iraq long before 9-11, and divving up the oil fields in the little bits we’ve seen from Cheney’s energy policy task force that the conservative judicial watch and liberal sierra club were able to subpoena. And before that, as well. That’s not conspiracy theory…that’s policy argument that, as you noted, was overruled in Gulf War I.
and as far as those wmds– well, not everyone thought it was reasonable. I also have to ask if you read Judith Miller and took her work seriously. If so, we have a major disagreement from the start, since it seems obvious that she was a (willing or not) mouthpiece for propaganda.
Former inspector Scott Ritter on “elite” views of wmds before the war (being in on the inspections is pretty elite, I suppose.)
In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer saying: “When you ask the question, ‘Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?’ the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is ‘no’ across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.”[15]
In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed.
and just a note about calling things conspiracy theory at this late date in the Iraq war-
from Krugman via Digby, since I don’t have an acct with the NYT:
The truth is that many of the people who throw around terms like ‘loopy conspiracy theories’ are lazy bullies who, as Zachary Roth put it on CJR Daily, The Columbia Journalism Review’s Web site, want to ‘confer instant illegitimacy on any argument with which they disagree.’ Instead of facing up to hard questions, they try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy.
Maybe Krugman should add the term from your lastsuperpower site “pseudo-left.” ..vs. “genuine left” –who support Bush’s idea of a war on terrorism, and..what else makes for a “genuiine left?”
Why spend time attacking your supposed comrades in arms unless you oppose them more than you oppose the current administration, in which case…okay, so that’s a genuine response, but all others are disingenuous? you’re “authentic” left? “Authentic” and “natural” and so on are great words for declaiming truth without having to support it.
anyway, again, some side notes, but I also did not find that you directly addressed some of my chief concerns, such as -those in power now do not have the foreign policy outlook that I believe will result in success. they have put us in such a bad position, as well, that they have undermined our ability to other, better things.
–and I base my view on their wrong-headedness on their past actions, which would seem to be the best indicator of their present ones, lacking any direct access to any policy meetings.
the soviet union imploded because of military overstretch and lying about its economic strength, in short terms. what makes what we’re doing any different in terms of the limits of power?
rather than engage in the global fight for oil…which, come on, among other things is one of THE big issues in the “great game.” –and has been since before WWII. –anyway, there are some of us who think that it’s possible to have a sustainable world by thinking outside of the box. The issue of war and global warming and sustainability are all part of the same problems that need other solutions.
Jeffersonian democracy would support small-scale locally generated power farms, for instance, which would also be in our interests in terms of national security, imo, because someone could not disrupt a small grid and have the impact that is possible now, and creating jobs locally is a good thing, and developing and maintaining a sense of community is a good thing…how are these issues pseudo left OR to be dismissed?
rather than spending my tax dollars on corrupt contractors of war, why not spend it on developing the technologies and making them affordable for ppl here?
the point I’m trying to make is that if you see the oil in the middle east as the only solution to your energy problems, you will see war as the quick solution too. And if you see terrorism as an issue of war, and not as a stateless crime that must be marginalized by disassociating it from existing power structures…well, we really don’t have too many meeting points.
The problem, of course, is that Bush and so many others have accepted the “Clash of Civilizations” rhetoric as a model for behavior. I think this is far too unsophisticated to be foreign policy. Todd talks about the crisis of modernization in the middle east…that is a better analogy, esp. for ppl who want to “bring democracy” to the area.
again, the analogy of the Iraq invasion and the US Revolutionary War does not hold. The US was a colony of Britain and rejected the regular stationing of british troops in the colonies after the seven years’ war that made Britain, not France, the superpower on turtle island (aka colonies). they rejected the stamp act. THEY initiated the war…someone did not come in and “liberate” them. France joined with America only after Franklin invited them with the amity treaty.
many slaves fought for the British…and they were right to fight against the colonies in their circumstances, weren’t they? history is not the clearly divided good guy bad guy scenario of Fox news. at the time of the revolution, there were ppl who favored emancipation of the slaves and of women…but these ppl were overruled…I guess they were “pseudo revolutionaries.”
however, I accept that you view the overthrow of Saddam as a legitmate way to bring better lives to those who survive a war, and accept any casualities in view of this.
and that is where we have the basic disagreeement.
I’m not pro-baathist–I look at the can of worms opened by invading Iraq and –as you say– no one can know the outcome for sure…and just as Britain thought its seven years’ war would be a cash cow for them…it turned out to be the first gasp of their dying empire.
But why not overthrow the Saudi Arabias govt instead? The wahhabists are the real swamp dwellers, aren’t they? they are far more oppressive and teach jihad…so why go to Iraq? The House of Saud had made a deal with the wahabbists that is sort of like the deal b/t the elite faction in the republican party and the talibornagains here…the wahabbists have had longer to implement their vision, and have less of a tradition of separation of church and state..including no religious test in this country…supposedly.
I also agree with you about majority opinion. I wrote that because you were trying to say that all who do not agree with what’s going on now are aligning ourselves with the racist far right. that’s not so. You shouldn’t make a claim, then have it disputed, then reply with an example that has nothing to do with your first statement.
and again, if you see, maybe I misunderstood your statement…correct me if I’m wrong…but if you see that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in Egypt if Mubarak were overthrown, why wouldn’t the ISI gain power in Pakistan? they are the only real faction that is a threat to Musharraf, aren’t they? And a significant faction within the ISI helped fight with the Taliban during the invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11.
who else has weapons there?
anyway, I don’t think you really addressed my basic question, which is this: why should I think that the current strategy in the US is a workable, much less correct decision when the only evidence I have of the outcome of decisions made by the same ppl would seem to lead a reasonable person to assume that these folks will not create their desired outcome?
are you again saying…well, we don’t know what will happen, ultimately, but we’re gonna go blow up the place anyway and hope for the best?
and again- where is the balance between the problems in Iraq and the things you cite as evidence of something else?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 8 2006 16:06 utc | 54
Well, why don’t Americans and others in the G8 (to make it brief) immediately pay for planes to get at least half of the Iraqi orphans out of Iraq and into a ‘decent life’ ?
Duh.
Anyway, Patrick and the likes, I believe, are entirely sincere. They are not agents, they are not lackeys – they believe what they say.
And that is the saddest story of all.
That seems dismissive, and it is.
Does Patrick take into account that the Iraqi constitution is illegal, as an occupying power has no rights to tamper with the pre-existing one? How would he feel if occupiers suddenly changed US laws to read ..whatever.. no free press…or only at most 1/10 women in Gvmt? Has he read the Geneva conventions? Probably not, he just thinks ‘democracy’ is cool…Does he know what has happened to Iraqi agriculture? No, he just thinks a free market or modernity or whatever is best for people.
Does he think political change is achieved by soldiers killing ppl in homes and in Abu Ghraib? Probably he considers it necessary!
Democracy? Diebold? Theresa La Pore? Hanging chads? Kerry slinking off?
The Iraqi people are free? Without food, electricity, huddling in their homes beceause gangsters and militia and the US army roam about and kill at will? Schools destroyed, how horrible, but the ppl can vote? Women are abducted and raped, fine, just a minor inconvenience? Now they have to hide under burkas or be accompanied…how does that sit with the dumbo Democrats after all their fakey seminars, pulling in the dollars from the drooling, approving Cheney?
The new Iraqi Gvmt. can’t get their shit together because they are to occupy the position of a lowly client state. All of them know it, from Sistani down. The only question for those scum bags, most of whom don’t even live in Iraq, is how much they can milk from the ‘system’ made possible by outside payments. They will vie for positions in the circle of corruption, as care has been taken to include only those who will mouth the platitudes and line their pockets. Seedy puppets, bloated with graft, haggling over that ministry or another, hoping their militias are ready to kill opponents. It’s not Gvmt, it is corrupt business. And the US knows it and loves the delay….They can blame those pesky ‘Ayrabs’ who don’t understand democracy, be sure of control….
That is what the US wants. The more disorganisation and strife the better. The Green Zone will be protected, the oil fields will run more or less, less is not of real importance (pace the US consumer), not in the short or medium run.
The new Iraqi Gvmt is working? Working how, for what, for whom? There are 8 million widows in Iraq today. Hoo, bad luck. Children die in the streets, oh so sad. No health services, dont’cha know, reconstruction didn’t quite do it, clinics weren’t built, what do you expect, it’s a horroshow there, those people are crazy you can’t count on anything, insurgents all over the place. Clean water? Logistics are tough. Medecines? Oh there are some NGO’s taking care of that. Work? The factories – to mention just one thing – were to be turned over to the ‘market’, so far no buyers, too bad, the Iraqis are not competitive, can’t perform properly. Oh, and women don’t work, it is against the culture of the people, and we have to respect that. DU? What? What? Threatens the future? What ?
But we got Saddam!
Argh! I just spat out some tea and choked on a date.
Posted by: Noisette | May 8 2006 20:25 utc | 61
patrickm- well, I know for a fact that one of your claims, i.e. that they are “letting nationalism” go forward in South America, is wrong. On April 11, 2002, the elites in Venezuela (who are backed by the U.S. –specifically Exxon) attempted a coup and failed because the ppl of Venezuela surrounded the presidential palace and told the coup plotters to get out. This coup was even predicted by Greg Palast…and so I was watching for it to unfold. Fleischer immediately tried to recognize the coup, then had to drag tail between legs to backtrack.
otherwise, I find the rationale you posit somewhat ridiculous. If we want to let the middle east work out their own destiny, then why don’t we get the fuck out? why don’t we remove troops and bases from Saudi Arabia and Israel?
the cognitive dissonance that I have concerning your comments is that I find them either unbelievably naive or total bullshit. Bush is the most corrupt piece of shit to hold office since Harding maybe, and you think this failure at every other endeavor is able to bring democracy to the world?!!??!?!?!!?
Frankly, it boggles my mind to know that you believe this. How gullible can you get?
It is not racist to look at BushCo and see them for what they are. That has nothing to do with wishing the Iraqis well. It is not racist to read about women in Basra and weep to know that they are being put under the veil. You never address this particular issue, either. Are women not that important where democracy is concerned?
As far as the “few bad apples” theory of Abu Ghraib, again, do you really believe this??? Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture of innocent ppl because he and his crew condoned any means necessary. The Int’l Red Cross and General Taguba both denied your “bad apples” theory…and yet you insist on its “truth” here..and expect me to believe all the other crap you spout about the elite change of heart in every way. LOL. I’m naive in many ways, but not THAT naive.
Your talk is the same talk we heard about the “freedom fighters” in Central America and the brave mujahadeen in Afghanistan (and thus we supported bin Laden.) Honestly. You say, oh, it’s diff. now b/c the former policy failed…it’s all they can do…
hmmm. you know, Reagan showed that tax cuts for the rich and all the other trickle down b.s. didn’t work. He actually raised taxes during his second term in order to avoid financial catastrophe…and yet, BushCo is still trying to implement that old, failed economic policy (and worse). So, yes, my cognitive dissonance again kicks in. That you think I should simply believe you because you reiterate this is, again, ridiculous to me.
there is NO evidence to support your claims that I have seen.
So, no, I do not believe that your view of what’s happening is correct. In fact, I think it is hopelessly naive. If you only looked at what Bremer did when he went into Iraq, you could see that you are promoting a “tooth fairy” view of current administration actions. I recommend goggling Mark Danner and reading his work…he was in Iraq. He writes quite a bit for the NYRoB. He also has a book called Torture and Truth that contains actual documents from the Red Cross, etc. about the systemic torture policy courtesy of Rummy.
Bremer sold off the country and contracted oil when it was illegal to do so. This has not changed, even with elections. You say the left must put the past behind them and accept that the b.s. we hear is true…well, tell me…why didn’t Iraqis get the contracts to rebuild their own country? There were many who were more than capable. Why did these contracts go to cronies of BushCo? Why, to this day, does this administration not hold their cronies responsible for their abuse of the Iraqis by failing to perform duties for which they were paid? If you want to build, or rebuld a country, why don’t you empower the people financially? –by giving them back their fucking country and getting the fuck out.
Your claim that the elected representatives in Iraq are respected directly contradicts something from at least one Iraqi, Riverbend, who reported her family laughing at the corruption, once again, in their “elected” officials.
You do have a point of agreement with Todd, the person I mentioned earlier who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union when the current Bushistas were saying we needed a mythical star wars shield to protect us…which Wolfowitz wanted to reconstitute, btw…this is nothing but a cash cow for defense contractors.
Todd also says the middle east will work its way through its own problems. Unlike you, he adds that if the U.S. continues its military interventions, the problems get worse.
anyway, again, you are willing to suspend disbelief and accept that the propaganda you hear from BushCo is real. I, on the other hand, cannot do that because I have NO reason to think that what you say is true. I have multiple reasons to doubt what you say.
btw, I have this bridge I’d like to sell…I’m tearing it down to create democracy in Britain…you interested?
good luck with your “authentic liberalism.”
Posted by: fauxreal | May 10 2006 12:53 utc | 63
|
