The UN, US and Iraq IV

OK, I think I understand where you're coming from, Gel. I don't think I'm coming quite from the same place. To begin with, my point is that, IMO, a broad, diverse range of information sources is preferable to a "Favored-One-or-Two-or-So" approach. As to a "more learned opinion", well that often is subjective. I like to think offer my own opinion more often than not. and I do take great interest in the opinion of others, even when that opinion amounts to expressing sentiment congruent enough with the thrust of of another author's thoughts to wish to echo them. Personally, I rarely do that, which to me really is no big deal. I'm not AGAINST cut-and-paste per se; I just don't do it much myself. I read most of the cut-and-paste articles, and sometimes even delve into the parent site, weighing the information as I go, and making my own determinations of its relevance to my own situation. I learn a lot that way. That indeed is "Exchange of information". Apart from the exchange of information is the exchange of opinion. I learn a lot thaat way too. And finally, Its my opinion, and stated without qualitative or quantitative research, that folks of one particular political persuasion seem to favor the practice of cut-and-paste more than do the counter-leaning members. It really is not enough of an issue to me to do the research to confirm or deny, so its nothing but a suspicion. It might be interesting to see the results of research into the matter, but I doubt it one way or the other. I would be unsurprised to find there to be in fact near parity.

I really don't see how you get self agrandizement out of any of that. But then, maybe its just me who doesn't see it.

If I read Cicerone Imposter correctly, he says we all get the information from various sources and for many reasons, we make interpretations.

Some would say Iraq is a quagmire.

Others would say Iraq is on the road to recovery and Democratization.

My opinion is that none of this would be worth more than a pitcher of warm spit if the perceived success or failure of the Iraq liberation were not inextricably tied up with the fortunes of the Republican Administration, The Republican Members of the House and Senate, The Democratic Members of the House and Senate and the Candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

For as important as Iraq is, it is for some merely a stand-in for the rest of the drama--

tax policy

immigration policy

Policy on Social Security

Medical benefits policies

the direction of Education funding

The appointment of judges

It is my opinion that the disagreement concerning what is happening in Iraq--Failure or evolution--is touted since the perception of either failure or evolution towards Democracy will obviously affect the election on Nov, 2nd 2004.

I will only point out that a year is an eternity in politics.

We shall see

Good points, good post, Italgato. Indeed the Iraq Matter, and by default the fate of the Iraqi People, is inextably intertwined with domestic American Politics, which themselves are moving inexorably toward a date-certain of significant decision a year hence, with many events and developments sure to come. It is my opinion that whatever the situation is a year hence, it will be notably different from the situation today. One certainty regarding conjecture of the future is that it is conjecture.

We shall see indeed. Shall see, not do see.

And then, Timber, would you say that I am correct when I hold that a comment with regard to the "polluted environment" or "homeless people" or
"poor suffering MILLIONS elderly who have to split thier pills because of insufficient governmental involvement" can also be and usually are statements with a political edge?

If you do agree, then you can see why I think it is important to become involved in All these discussions since the objective--- victory at the polls in 2004 is the sina qua non to achieve all of the goals of the Republican Party.

Whether or not the positions re those issues is "Correct" or not, I largely share your apparent concerns regarding them. That we may be to some extent or another in agreement certainly does not mandate that either or both of us is "Correct". There are other opinions. We may believe ourselves to be correct, but "Correctness" is frequently subjective, and often revealed only by history. We are capable of error, regardless that we may believe we are not in error. That is the nature of opinion, IMO.

Today in England, at the annual conference of the Conservative Party, its leader Iain Duncan Smith in his speech lambasted Tony Blair over Dr. Kelly's suicide and the revelations of the Hutton inquiry:



(The Times)

Re: British Conservatives and the Iraq war, the last Guardian/ICM poll (23 September) showed even a majority of Tory voters no longer considered the Iraq war justified. Only Labour voters still stand behind Blair concerning his decision to go to war againt Iraq:

Quite so- Timber. After reading some of Mortimer Adler's essays on Truth and Error, I must tell you that you are correct. Certainty is not within our reach. However, I think we must not be Hamletlike and allow ourselves to be frozen by the thought that there is no "certainty" that we are correct.

We must examine our principles, choose our policies and then fight for them.

Adler examines truth and error and then calls upon the legal expedient of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If we can reason, through our principles, to conclusions that we find are true beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the best we( as humans) can do.

But we MUST choose.

Not to choose is to make a choice.

I believe that:

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

nimh: When you vote, remember to vote for the Labor Party. You do vote in England, do you not?

Since NIMH is Dutch, why would he vote for the British Labour party?

.....

Heh. Yeh, hobit is right, I'm Dutch, I vote only in elections in the Netherlands.

Something I regret, since Dutch politicians have nooo power on the world stage, and therefore, neither has my vote ... but then again, I only have the one, anyway ;-)

("vote early, and vote often!" - who was that again?)

If I lived in the UK, I'd vote LibDem.

You don't know how badly I wish the unwashed masses (you know, the ones who refer to "Our sayy-vyor Jaysus and his mama...Missus Christ") who can be counted on to support Bushy-Poo II here in the US wouldn't vote.

Huh - way I see it, you need more people to vote over there, not less. You already got the lowest turnout in the developed world ...

Whaddaya think US politics would look like if the half of the population that doesnt come out to vote would start going to the polls again?

(Oh ... I guess thats a bit far off-topic, huh?)

I would hope it would mean things would take a turn for the better.
I fear it would instead mean Larry Flynt as president.

Gimmeabreak ..... if 100% of the registered voters voted there would be a 140% turnout ... that would have made Bush a 49% loser and he still would have been appointed President.

On the developed world theme:

I would suggest a country where only 1/2 the population votes is by definition underdeveloped.

And when the 1/2 that do vote elect a B movie actor as president or state governor, I suggest it is proof of an underdeveloped education system.


Italgato

Thanks for encouraging Nimh to vote Labour. I do hope he will change his nationality, residency and political pursuasion and vote for my party in Britain.

But I'm surprised you encourage anyone to vote for a party which....just reading from the back of my party card...



I would not have thought a party that founded the world's first national health service, free at the point of use, which struggled for 100 years to redress the balance of power between the ruling elite and working people and which continues today to give a lead to all democratic socialist parties throughout the world (apologies Walter) would be "your cup of tea" at all.


However I've just read the back of the card again. And I can tell you it says nothing about bombing Iraq at the behest of the president of the united states.

But since I've mentioned the I- word I will say this. Tony Blair took this country into war with Iraq because he felt he had no choice. He feels (wrongly in my view) that Britain is nothing if it is not America's "go to buddy" in Europe. He sent our troops to war because he said (on record) that it was necessary to pay the "blood price".

Why America invaded Iraq is an entirely different question, one that I have given my own views on this forum many times, and one for which I still await a satisfactory answer from the American right.

Should America under Bush next wish to bomb Iran Syria or North Korea, I would think it highly unlikely that even Tony Blair, (a man btw for whom I have a great deal of respect and whose govt has done many good things for the people of Britain)- even he - would be unable to pursuade his cabinet, the Labour party, Parliament, and the people that we owe the United States any more blood.

So even with Nimh's vote, you still wouldn't get more support for war.

A short & sweet perspective.





Iraq oil - the target for years
By Ahmad Quni

Sunday 10 August 2003, 12:40 Makka Time, 9:40 GMT



US policy towards Iraq has always been shaped by the country's rich oil resources, its strategic location on the Gulf and its regional weight.

Iraq ranks only second to Saudi Arabia for its oil resources, and was the world's second largest oil exporter before the Iraq-Iran war broke out in 1980.

The US has always been a key importer of Iraqi oil. Even under the UN sanctions, US companies imported some 750,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Iraq until the end of 2002.

Based on current estimates, Iraq's oil reserves stand at about 115 billion barrels, equivalent to the total oil reserves of the US, Canada, Mexico, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China and the whole of Asia.

Now that the US has succeeded in ousting President Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil is set to start flowing once again.

US occupation administration hopes that Iraq would soon be able to export about 600-700,000 barrels a day, mostly to the US, in addition to 300-400,000 barrels produced for domestic consumption.

Exports could be back to the pre-war level of 2.5 million barrels a day, say US occupation officials.

According to plans designed by the occupying powers, Iraqi oil revenues will be channeled into a trust fund controlled by the US and the UK.

Roots of ambitions

The roots of US ambitions in Iraq go back to the aftermath of World War I (WWI) which put an end to Turkish presence in the region. Then the Sykes-Picot agreement, signed by the British and the French, re-carved the Middle East creating new entities ruled either directly by the colonialist powers or by puppet regimes.

Despite the underlying differences, Britain and France agreed to divide the Fertile Crescent encompassing Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan, between them as areas of influence.

France got Lebanon and Syria, while Palestine, Jordan, and the two southern provinces of Iraq-Baghdad and al-Basra went to Britain.

However, the status of the province of Mosul, an integral part of Iraq for thousands of years, remained unresolved.

Though it was part of the French sphere of influence, as agreed, the British were determined to keep Mosul within their new Iraq colony.

Immediately after Turkey was defeated, the British army occupied Mosul and the imperialist struggle between Britain and France over Mosul heralded the beginnings of US ambitions in Iraq.

The apparent cause of rivalry between Britain and France, and at a later stage the US, over Mosul was its known but largely undeveloped oil resources.

Though its effort in WWI was very limited, the US, emerging as a super power, was keen to ensure that its economic and political interests were taken into account in the post-war world of the Middle East, as it came to be called by the imperialist powers.

Oil was at the top of these concerns as the importance of the Gulf Region was mounting in view of its huge oil reserves.

Open-door policy

Faced with the British and French domination over the region's huge resources, the US at first demanded an "open door" policy allowing US companies to freely negotiate oil contracts with the puppet monarchy of King Faisal whom the British had installed in Iraq.

In 1927, major oil explorations were undertaken and huge oil deposits were discovered in the Mosul province, which fuelled the rivalry among competing colonialist oil companies even further.

However, a settlement was arranged and Iraqi oil was divided up into five portions, 23.75% for each of several companies from Britain, France, Holland and the United States.

The Iraqi people were left with virtually nothing of their oil wealth, and this unfair situation continued until 1958 when the Hashemite monarchy was toppled in a military coup.

The Iraqi petroleum company, shared by British Petroleum, Shell, Mobil and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) was established. Within a few years, this company had a total monopoly of Iraqi oil production.

Yet, the US oil companies and their government in Washington, were not satisfied since their target was to achieve complete control of the Middle East oil by displacing the British.

Growing US role

Following the end of WWI, the British Empire was greatly weakened by the war in which it lost key colonies in Asia. On the other hand, the US grew increasingly powerful throughout the world.

The administrations of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman dominated by big banking, oil and other corporate interests, were determined to restructure the post-war world to ensure US domination.

Thus, one of the key elements of the US domination strategy was aimed at controlling global resources, particularly oil.

Within this context, the US threw its full weight behind the Shah of Iran who was one of its closest allies in the region.

By mid 1950, US influence in Iraq was almost as powerful as that of Britain which was the actual colonising force on the ground.

In 1955, the Baghdad Pact , including in addition to Iraq Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and the UK was set up to counter the rise of Arab and other liberation movements in the Middle East and Asia.

The 1958 revolution

By July 1958, a military coup overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, a development that the US regarded as detrimental to its vital interests and immediately landed 20,000 marines in Lebanon in the context of what was known as the "Eisenhower doctrine."

In accordance with that doctrine, the US would intervene directly and even go to war to protect its interests in the Middle East.

The Eisenhower administration then considered the idea of invading Iraq, to overturn the new regime and to install a new puppet government in Iraq.

But the US was forced to abandon that plan due to several regional and international factors including the support given by China and the Soviet Union to the revolutionary government in Iraq.

The US however, never stopped targeting Iraq as one of its adversaries in the region and rendered unlimited support to the rebel right-wing Kurdish insurgency in the north of the country.

In the eighties when the US lost its main ally in Iran, its relations with the Saddam regime in Baghdad thawed to a considerable extent and it even supported Iraq in its war with Iran.

However that honeymoon ended when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the US hurried to protect and preserve its interests in the oil-rich region.

You don't want to miss this. Be sure to visit each url


CAVEAT
No punches pulled in the photography ......


Iraq ... a closer look

Gel, everytime I see those photos, I can't help but picture Bush's smirk, Rumsfeld's grin, and Cheney's reptillian sneer. "Collateral damage" anyone?
Its just amazing how efficiently we can create enemies.