0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:36 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
However, I'm still thinking about a suitable party for you here. English Greens and LibDem yellow. A bit of red Dutch tulips perhaps? A subtle mixture of radicalism, ecofriendly economics, freedom of expression, beards and sandals. Thats it! The Red Green Yellow alliance. Or as it will soon be known, the Vomit Party!


Oy! <giggles> I'll go for most of that, but beards and sandals!? OMG. You do realise that I was only joking about the English Greens being too radical for me - its their beards and sandals, exactly, that put me off!

<grins>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:37 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
You cannot disobey the United Nations to punish another nation for disobeying the United Nations. The stupidity of that argument is self evident.


Very Happy

Yep - thats pretty much it. I woulda taken at least three paragraphs to make that point <grins>.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:45 pm
The only thing we have to ponder is if we would send our own country's troops to another war arena if we had no say in matters of policy or administration concerning the resolution and aftermath of that conflict. There has been fun made here of the feebleness of UN handling of other administrative situations. The UN has been useful when it was invoked and used properly. We see the UN as weak when it acts counter to American hegemony and against our economic interests.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:48 pm
Kara wrote:
I've been away for a week and am reading back many pages to catch up.

nimh, you wrote three posts yesterday afternoon -- between 3 pm and 4:30 -- which are absolutely definitive, to my mind. No rant there. Just facts.


Thanks Kara ... <blushes>

I think you're a welcome voice of reason amidst all the heated assertions here, so that means a lot to me <nods>.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:57 pm
Not really a welcome voice of reason (although I like that, Habibi... Smile ) perhaps it is that I do not keep up with the swirl of posts and reposts (riposte?) quickly enough that I can cut and parry with the best.

I was particularly taken with those posts of yours on the day I mentioned. We in the US are swept up day to day -- nay, hour to hour -- and tend to forget the lessons we learned, or should have, only a week or a month earlier. How can we unlearn the fact that this administration affirmed passionately all of what you recounted in your quoted bits a few days ago? How can we reconcile today's spin with yesterday's facts that are now being ignored or swept under the carpet?

If anything can make a citizen cynical and wanting to withdraw from the political process, it is whereof you speak.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 12:47 am
timber said
Quote:
blatham, I see justification for a US strategic presence in the region for the foreseeable future. I also believe the US intends the Iraqis will sell their oil to whomever the Iraqis please, at prevailing market price and for whatever currency the Iraqis choose in which to denominate their oil revenue. I'm sure the US has preferrences, but I do not believe those preferrences will be material to the US intent for Iraqi self determination and responsibility for their own affairs.

Tartarin, can you nominate a Primary Contractor with superior credentials to Halliburton ... disregarding putative political affilliation? Or does your political view overide pertinent qualifications as regard the task at hand?
Timber
There is a justification, of sorts, for a US strategic presence anywhere in the world. There is a justification, of sorts, for a Chinese strategic presence in Iraq or anywhere else too. But if it is the administration's intention to maintain Iraq as a military outpost, they aren't being honest about that to either American citizens or the Iraqis (I've seen only one comment on this, from a Pentagon fellow, who said that is the plan...I linked that some months ago). And what happens if the happy democratic and autonomous population says "America get out"? Fat chance. Aside from the examples hobit mentioned above of the US's affinity for totalitarian states (where such support US interests - popular local will notwithstanding, one can just look at what happened less than a year ago when the 'bad' countries did exactly what their citizens overwhelmingly wished them to do (to NOT join in on a preemptive and unsanctioned war) and the 'good' countries were those who ignored the overwhelming wishes of their citizens. Promoting democracy is not what the US has been about in any of these (or many other) cases, and to insist otherwise is to ignore the facts. If the US had a compelling history of foreign engagements motivated by humanitarian values, rather than military or financial self-interest, then this 'concern for the Iraqi downtrodden' justification wouldn't sound so much like a bald faced lie.

Consequently, regarding how the US will procede in relationship to control of Iraq oil, I think your statement above would fit very adroitly into a modern version of Candide.

Likewise your rhetorical question to Tartarin. Of course there are many other organizations besides Halliburton which could handle this task, they just aren't American.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:03 am
Kara wrote:
Not really a welcome voice of reason (although I like that, Habibi... Smile ) perhaps it is that I do not keep up with the swirl of posts and reposts (riposte?) quickly enough that I can cut and parry with the best.

I was particularly taken with those posts of yours on the day I mentioned. We in the US are swept up day to day -- nay, hour to hour -- and tend to forget the lessons we learned, or should have, only a week or a month earlier. How can we unlearn the fact that this administration affirmed passionately all of what you recounted in your quoted bits a few days ago? How can we reconcile today's spin with yesterday's facts that are now being ignored or swept under the carpet?

If anything can make a citizen cynical and wanting to withdraw from the political process, it is whereof you speak.


Tao is obscured when men understand only one pair of opposites, or concentrate only on a partial aspect of being. Then clear expression also becomes muddled by mere wordplay, affirming this one aspect and denying all the rest.

The pivot of Tao passes through the center where all affirmations and denials converge. He who grasps the pivot is at the still-point from which all movements and oppositions can be seen in their right relationship...
Abandoning all thought of imposing a limit or taking sides, he rests in direct intuition.

B. What you asked brought this to mind ...
It's called 'truth' and it begins in the center.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:39 am
Some great posts recently thanks all.

Now I apologies in advance for this, but having thought about it, and having written something on it, I'm damn well going to post it! Feel free to use PgDn key Very Happy

The fundamental issue facing the world today imo is the nature of the relationship between America and Europe. Are we the twin pillars of western civilisation, or are we becoming economic and political rivals despite our shared heritage?

The common view in Europe is very much that Americans are our cousins with similar values and aspirations. The United States is seen generally as a benign force, somewhat hot headed perhaps, but with the input of European guidance and experience, together there is no problem on earth that cannot be tackled.

Certainly Tony Blair thinks that way. He thinks the way forward is active cooperation and that Britain is ideally positioned to act as that vital bridge and pivot between the two.

The problem with that approach in my view is that it is not realistic. History shows that as great powers emerge a state of rivalry develops between them rather than a tendency towards mutual co-operation.
Furthermore co-operation requires an active and continuing willingness by both sides. For rivalry to develop, only one party needs to lose track of that common objective. I think we in Europe have been guilty of assuming that because we want to act in collaboration with the Americans, that this must necessarily be reciprocated. I'm sure there are many Americans who do desperately want partnership with the rest of the world and with Europe in particular, but even if that view is widespread in the US, it does not appear to be dominant, and certainly not under this US administration.

In short I believe Blair is mistaken by not appreciating that a state of rivalry is the natural order of things and that for co-operation to work, it requires the active and continued willingness of both parties to make it work.

Given the realities of power politics, I don't believe the US particularly wants to see a strong and united Europe with an equally strong euro acting as a reserve currency against the dollar.

Certainly the US does not want to see the middle east (in Europe's back yard) start selling its oil in euros. That would weaken the dollar and the American economy and knock the United States from its luxurious position of being able to print the dollar bills that everyone else has to earn in order to buy the oil their economies need.

Sadly the future lies not necessarily in co operation with the US but more likely in economic and political rivalry, and not so much because the Europeans want that, but rather that the US will never give up its current position of dominance without a struggle.

So who will win? Well let me make it clear I'm not talking about war here. If the US and USSR can eyeball each other for 50 years with nuclear weapons I don't expect a nuclear exchange between Paris and New York any time soon. But you can't get away from the geopolitical realities.

If it was just an economic struggle between the US and Europe, then my money would be on the US. But I don't see it working out that way. America has a military presence virtually all over the Eurasian continent. To my knowledge there are no European bases in N or S America.

I believe the actions of the US which appears to be to consolidate its position as global hegemon will have the effect of driving other power blocks in the world together, united in nothing other than their opposition to US influence in what they see as their home territory.

The EU is expanding eastwards. There is little doubt the euro will become (is) established as the second world currency to the dollar. How long before Russia cements its various trade arrangements with the EU, dumps the rouble and adopts the euro?

And what if EU/Russia adopt a peace and security pact with China? Fantastic though it might seem what's to stop China adopting the euro?

You would then have almost the entire Eurasian continent, with all its resources and peoples and cultures united in its desire to assert itself as the leading power in the world and against the interlopers from across the water(s). Then it really would be the US against the rest of the world, and there can't be much doubt about the outcome.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 06:51 am
Steve, that were'nt so bad .... I think I'll rest now Wink


Found this cool site ...... worth sharing.
http://www.spiritcaller.net/index.htm

Check out the news
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:23 am
Thanks, Steve!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:35 am
Thats appreciated Geli and Walter. Think of it as my personal therapy session Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:40 am
Let me turn that back on you, Timber! What makes you think Halliburton is the best?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:46 am
Tartarin wrote:
Let me turn that back on you, Timber! What makes you think Halliburton is the best?

They have the qualifications, the resources, the track record, and extensive experience in the Middle East. They are neither French nor German. They employ US citizens. They pay US taxes. I own Haliburton stock.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 08:51 am
Blatham, that was excellent, what you posted around midnight last night.

To me the issue about Halliburton is not what kind of a job they are doing but how they got the job in the first place. At least an appearance of bidding would have thrown a sop to the doubters. If the only issue is what end is achieved, not the means of accomplishing it, then one must look only to Halliburton's work on the ground, and that seems to be timber's point. I just don't agree with it.

Steve, I'm reading your post in spite of your suggestion that one could ignore or delete what seems to be strongly held opinion. I'll be back to comment.

Ge, where do you find these things. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:00 am
Timber -- You killed yourself off wonderfully there; then Kara stated the obvious. I'm satisfied! (You also might want to check out how the "work on the ground" is being rated on the actual ground.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:03 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Think of it as my personal therapy session Rolling Eyes


Since self-therapy seldom works and even it is some help, rarely the effect last longer then three weeks,

- you'll get a free therapy hour in 'the cheese' with touching up in 'The Archer's' (or vice versa) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:16 am
The Halliburton actuality (these are not from their annual reports):

Halliburton unit in consortium fingered for alleged corruption http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/10/06/daily55.html

U.S. lawmaker says Halliburton overbills in Iraq
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/10/15/rtr1110073.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:24 am
It might be of some interest to observe, what average soldiers think in Iraq, as printed today in the Stars and Stripes
Quote:

http://www.estripes.com/index_files/logo_main.gif
What is the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Answers vary. High-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding.

Some troops on the ground have begged to differ, writing to Stars and Stripes and to others about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units.

There was a correlation between such things as local services and release dates on the one hand, and morale on the other.

Stars and Stripes sent a team of reporters to Iraq to try to ascertain the states of both conditions and morale. Troops were asked about morale, among many other issues, in a 17-point questionnaire, which was filled out and returned by nearly 2,000 persons.

The results varied, sometimes dramatically:

¶ Among the largest group surveyed, Army troops, the results looked much like a bell curve. Twenty-seven percent said their personal morale was "high" or "very high." Thirty-three percent said it was "low" or "very low." The largest percentage fell in the middle, saying it was "average."

¶ Among the second largest group, reservists and National Guard members, the differences were much starker. Only 15 percent said their own morale was "high" or "very high," while 48 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Among Marines, the next largest group, 44 percent said their morale was "high" or "very high," and only 14 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Among airmen, the smallest of the four major groups surveyed because fewer questionnaires were allowed to be circulated to them, the results were also very positive. Thirty-nine percent said their morale was "high" or "very high," and only 6 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Very few Navy servicemembers could be found to question in Iraq.

The questionnaire findings can't be projected to all the servicemembers in Iraq. Still, the reporting of "lows" among the two largest groups surveyed, Army and Reserve/National Guard, seemed significant. The views of these troops, at least, appeared to contrast sharply with those of the visiting VIPs.

Respondents to the survey were not given a definition of morale. They responded according to what they interpreted the word to mean. Some believe morale reflects the degree of well-being felt by the servicemember. On the other hand, commanders say that in measuring morale, they want to know if the servicemember is following orders and getting the job done.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said that low morale isn't an issue because troops are fulfilling the mission.

"Morale is … not necessarily giving them Baskin-Robbins," he said in a Stars and Stripes interview. "Sometimes it's being able to train them hard and keep them focused in a combat environment so they can survive.

"So at its most fundamental level within our Army, taking care of soldiers and their morale could have very few worldly comforts. But the morale of the soldier is good. He's being taken care of, he's accomplishing his mission, he's being successful in the warfighting."

Other military leaders say they are always looking at ways to improve the morale of their troops. "Morale begins with caring leaders looking their soldiers in the eye," said Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. "When senior leaders visit the troops in Iraq, they relate that the troops tell them that morale is good, a fact that's backed up by re-enlistment and retention rates."

(These rates have been acceptable or good for the services overall. Figures for re-enlistments in Iraq are not available yet, officials said. In the Stripes survey, half or more respondents from the Army, Marines and Reserves said they were unlikely to stay in the service. Officials say re-enlistments normally drop after conflicts.)

Cassella said that leaders visiting Iraq seek out the opinions of troops. Some say the views expressed may be distorted as a result of the nature of the get-togethers, "dog and pony shows," in the words of combat engineer Pfc. Roger Hunsaker.

"When congressional delegations came through," said one 36-year-old artillery master sergeant who asked not to be identified, commanders "hand-picked the soldiers who would go. They stacked the deck."

Others on the ground in Iraq think top leaders are right more times than they are given credit for.

"I heard that reporters/politicians were trying to say morale was down out here," Petty Officer Matthew W. Early wrote on his questionnaire at Camp Get Some in southern Iraq. "What do people back home expect us to feel after a war? Are we supposed to be as happy here as we are with our friends and families back home? Hell no.

"Of course, when confronted by reporters, we're going to voice our opinions about our situation. Unfortunately, some people like to complain about how they live or what they don't have. The complaint concerning morale is the voice of the minority, not the majority."

In the Stripes survey, troops consistently rated their unit's morale as lower than their own. John Kay, marketing director for the Army Research Institute, said, "Soldiers always rate self [personal] morale higher than unit morale. This is nothing new."

Troops may wish to report what they perceive as the true morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a way of saying, "I'm OK, but the unit's not."

Some of the gap can also be the result of hearing other troops complain, compounding the impression that unit morale is low, even if each complainer believes his or her own morale is better.

"Both are true," said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist with Northwestern University.

The military studies morale regularly, but "the further you go up the chain in the officer corps, the reality of day-to-day morale cannot register completely," said Lt. Col. Daniel Smith, retired chief of research for the Center for Defense Information. "Whereas when you talk to the platoon sergeants, platoon leaders and even company commanders, you get a better sense of the true state of affairs. Do the weapons work? Are they getting hot meals? Are they getting enough rest? Are their leaders competent and not taking unnecessary risks?"

Unlike some officials who have visited Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a September stop in Iraq, spoke not about morale per se, but about the importance of the mission and about sacrifice.

"You're people ... who weren't drafted, you weren't conscripted, you searched your souls and decided that you wanted to step forward and serve your country," he told the 4th Infantry Division, according to a Pentagon transcript.

Another speech to air assault soldiers of the 101st Airborne division echoed the sentiment:

"The important thing I would also add is that every one of you is a volunteer. You all asked to do this, and that is impressive and it's appreciated."
http://www.stripes.com/morale/personal.jpg
http://www.stripes.com/morale/unit.jpg
http://www.stripes.com/morale/related.jpg

Staff writer Jon R. Anderson contributed to this story.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:31 am
Walter wrote

Quote:
you'll get a free therapy hour in 'the cheese' with touching up in 'The Archer's' (or vice versa)


er?

Yes Walter, Whose therapy was this anyway, mine or yours? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:33 am
Oh, Embarrassed I completely misunderstood the concept Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/02/2025 at 05:36:17