The US, UN & Iraq II

Joe Nation

Why don't you just ask Tartarin of her intent---one thing about her ----she won't back up for anyone.

WEll, before we go back on topic, let me just say that Jerry Falwell always says, "love the sinner, hate the sin." He actually said it about Larry Flynt, but I think he'd most likely persist and apply it to Saddam too. Although, I think possibly even Jerry Falwell would think Saddam is a likely lost cause. But I may be wrong.

I don't have to ask her, I can read.

Um.

Does anyone have an opinion on the acceptability of an Islamic (Sharia Law) government running Iraq by, let's say, next Ramandan?

Anyone who doesn't believe there are plenty of people who think 9/11 was an internally bred disaster need only to pop over to Abuzz and read all about it or check around the many websites which provide "proof." It's a very common subject also on Libertarian and Constitutionalist party radio talk shows. Within the believing group there seems to be a split between those who think external terrorists piloted the planes but there was evidence by July '01 that the Executive had the information about an attack, and those who just plain think Bush was in it up to his eyeballs. If anyone is really interested in websites on this subject, I'll see if I can find them.

I'm a contributing member of the ACLU, so will be paying part of the cost of Perception's protest!!

Would anyone care to go into Colin Powell's remarks relative to the prospective roles for the US, The UN, and Iraq in the immediate post-Saddam period? The French aren't likely to offer enthusiastic support for this itteration of The Powell Doctrine.

Tangentially, has anyone else picked up on the alteration of French, German, and Russian stance ... while none specifically endorse the attack on Iraq, all are on record as preferring a rapid and relatively trouble-free US success in the endeavor. Of course, each goes on to allude to their own desires for participation in the upcoming Iraq.

It's disingenuous to suggest that any altering of stances now that the tanks are in Bagdhad means that the opposition prior to the war was less than genuine. The whole world was forced to adapt to this action - the body bags make it impossible not to. Anyway, I'm sure you don't give equal weight to the half dozen or so "adjustments" the bush administration has made in their stated purpose for invading.

Joe -- I don't think it's likely. I think we'll be running things there for quite awhile....officially or unofficially, that's the question.

Timber

I believe he made it clear that the US would play a KEY role in the rebuilding of Iraq---Not the UN---am I correct?

Publicly Blair will appear to be very upset but privately I believe he agrees that the UN would just screw it up. Can you just see a Syrian in charge of the whole thing?

Both Blair and Bush will never allow Putin, Chirac or Schroeder to inject one word of persuasion toward the plan or the execution of the plan. Bush is resigned to being a one term President and Blair will probably survive politically.

Some people believe there's a conspiracy (this one's from a few years ago when Army and Air Force bases were being closed) to round up all the Americans who refuse to give up their guns and put them into concentration camps on the deserted military bases. They believe that the OK City bombing was really a governmental conspiracy intended to make Americans be willing to give up their guns. It was all about the "New World Order" mentioned by Bush the Senior and before him Reagan and after them, apparently Clinton. It included such conspirators as the media (that's all of the media, they cooperate so well, all American presidents past and present, The Republican and Democratic parties, the military, etc.) Now, I heard this at my sister's house on a video tape she was playing for my oldest daughter one week end when we were visiting. I just sat in my room and read Freud, and read and read. When asked my opinion, I finally had to admit that I thought the guy speaking on the tape had a psychiatric disorder. And they were amazed I doubted the guy. I pointed out that I thought it unlikely that all these people could possibly cooperate. They aren't generally the agreeing and cooperating types. But that logic was lost on em. Some people will believe in anything that suits their purposes. These are the same people (Jerry Falwell and his crowd) who claim they have proof that the Clinton's have murdered people in their rush to power. Ah well.............now back to the topic at hand.

Tartarin

We're not interested in what a bunch of crazies think---it is your intent in your post that we are interested in. What did YOU mean when you said it was an internal affair?

Lola wrote:

who claim they have proof that the Clinton's have murdered people in their rush to power. Ah well.............now back to the topic at hand.

Now there's a topic I'm interested in..........just kidding

Wednesday

post war iraq
Privatizing Iraq's oil industry would possibly help the federalism project, but it could also benefit foreign oil companies. Protests from Iraqis and the Western left that the current war is a cynical attempt by the U.S. government to grab Iraq's oil for American oil companies are partly mistaken -- simply lifting the U.N. sanctions would have accomplished that. But a privatized and fragmented Iraqi oil industry would have less bargaining power, and foreign oil companies would be better able to negotiate more favorable terms in their contracts with that industry. According to Daphne Eviatar, writing for Newsweek International, "the oil giants are likely to push a controversial form of contract that gives them an ownership stake in the oilfields and guaranteed relief from national tax and environmental laws" in compensation for the cost of restoring Iraqi oil production. Strong, nationalized oil industries (like that in Kuwait) tend to be more successful at resisting such contracts, known as "production-sharing agreements," or PSAs.

Furthermore, as John B. Judis points out in a Jan. 20 article in the New Republic, "If Iraq privatized its oil, it would inevitably leave OPEC, which requires each member country to strictly regulate their output and oil exports." This would not only weaken OPEC but, "more important to the neoconservatives, it would undermine Saudi Arabia's economic and political clout and perhaps endanger the Saudi regime itself ... They see the fall of OPEC and of the Saudi regime as a desirable outcome of a U.S. ouster of Saddam."

The neocon hawks in the Bush administration have made little effort to hide the fact that they consider the invasion and "democratization" of Iraq to be merely the prelude to a revamping of the whole Middle East. If this stage of the project goes well, Syria and Iran are next in line. A decentralized Iraq with a privatized oil industry that upsets the balance of power in the OPEC cartel could have other benefits as well. "For them," says MacKey, "stabilizing the Middle East means ending Arab opposition to Israel without any compromises from Israel on [its treatment of] the Palestinians."

Perception, please speak for yourself. I know, I for one am unclear who your 'we' intends to include.

The very extraordinary quality of postings that we've seen here over the last couple of days is not reflected in some of tonight's exchanges.

perc

You have misunderstood or misread the quote you keep referring to. You can sort this out with me by pm if you wish, but further reference here is to end.

She didn't say that. She said "Some continue to believe quite strongly...."
She didn't say she believed they were right or wrong or off their nut, you implied she did. CUT IT OUT>

And yeah, who is that is "We" you refer to? All of us? Well, pilgrim......========.

The plan.

Under the plan, the government will consist of 23 ministries, each headed by an American. Every ministry will also have four Iraqi advisers appointed by the Americans, the Guardian has learned.

The government will take over Iraq city by city. Areas declared "liberated" by General Tommy Franks will be transferred to the temporary government under the overall control of Jay Garner, the former US general appointed to head a military occupation of Iraq. (link)

And worse, they intend to privatise Iraq's oil:
Leaks from the state department's "future of Iraq" office show Washington plans to privatise the Iraqi economy and particularly the state-owned national oil company. Experts on its energy panel want to start with "downstream" assets like retail petrol stations. This would be a quick way to gouge money from Iraqi consumers. Later they would privatise exploration and development.

Even if majority ownership were restricted to Iraqis, Russia's grim experience of energy privatisation shows how a new class of oil magnates quickly send their profits to offshore banks. If the interests of all Iraqis are to be protected, it would be better to keep state control and modify the UN oil-for-food programme, which has been a relatively efficient and internationally supervised way of channelling revenues to the country's poor. (link - thanks anthony for the link)

I wonder what they foreign ownership regulations will be on that. And if this isn't about oil or manifest destiny (my nick for the New American Century ideological camp), then where are the vultures or the same kind of "responsible" fervor to rebuild Afghanistan which isn't even receiving the amount it was pledged for rebuilding.
4/1/2003 10:58:38 PM
tell me / link it

I do not expect that these fellows (rumsfeld, et al) think that the US ought to leave Iraq. I hazard the notion that Iraq is precisely where they want US military forces centered for the middle east.

Well there you have it folks---fuzzy thinking has spun me out again---I'm off to bed.

Night Night Perc.

Tomorrow's another day.

Peace. Still possible.

Joe

That ma well have been the only time I have heard a statement called both factual and hyperbolic but I do notice a valid point.

I will make my statement more relevant in a tad. But first, most nations, though peaceful have had in their recent past happenstances that in my opinion would pass for an alledged terrorist connection to some.

My poin was not to draw attention to the obvious ability and possibility but rather the helplessness of nations to avoid allegations when they people start tossing them around fecklessly.

Noble causes are often bismirched in the politial arena. A more relevant statement on my part would ahve been to draw attention to situations in which security was not the concern, but rather political gain.

Case in point: Cuba has been lying low. Many believe Castro is ready to deal with the US and trying to avoid their bad side. While this is a subjective argument a convincing casecan be made that Cuba does not currently seek strife with the United States and that it does not pose a threat to the United States.

Yet when Carter decided to blunder over there in his campaign to have the Nobel prize renamed the Carter Prize this spurious allegation was made. The administration's political bucket of water on Carter's silly trip was to hint at Cuba's capabilities for terrorism. This, at the height of America's paranoia, was not substantiated then or afterwards and it was a hardly disguised political maneuver. I will expound on this belo.



Your optimism is admirable. And possible. I consider it unlikey due to the complexities of the issues the notion encompasses.

For a quick example I refer to your frequently given definition of terrorism. By that definition a Palestinian suicide bombing on a military outpost in the territories would not be terrorism (not against civilians, targets military, targets ones involved in violent conflict..).

I think many would say such a scenario IS terrorism.

This is a simple example of the complexities and concerns involved. A more relevant, and perhaps more subtle, point would be to draw attention to the fact that while seeking support for the war, Israel was pressured into easing up on their perceived war on terror to accomodate an attempt to gain Arab support for a plan to oust a man who could potentially aid a terrorist attack.

Furthermore some contend that a resolution to the conflict in the mid east should be a more pressing concern as far as the reduction of terrorism and the stabalization of the region go.
Good chances were missed to do exactly that, though I still believe Bush will make an effort to meet his own deadlines in the mideast.

I suggest that the priorities are wrong. If
stabalization and the reduction of the statistical probability of terrorism is one's goal it seems likely that the excuse that pitiful extremists use to validate their rage would be a more pressing concern. Saddam himself wuld have had to find some new speeches.



And in the overwhelming majority of the occurences such a goal is not even broached. Rendering the statistical likelyhood of such a "threat" to be minimal and anecdotal.



I do trust that that, barring the unforseen, will happen. America will probably be much more committed to Iraq's restructure than it was in Afghanistan. It's simply wise to do so. In Iraq America's sense of responsibility will be much greater and there will be sufficient motivation for America to do a good job.

My concerns are not short term but rather long term. A theme I sense from you is that 9/11 meant new paradigms. I dispute this. The only thing new about this is the lengths that some are willing to go draw political capital toward their objectives. By this I do not mean to question the nobility to seek to end terror's utility but rather the depths of intelectual leeway that are now tolerable. It did not take long for the attepted tie in of Iraq to 9/11 to commence. This was as unsubstantiated as it was belived at the time. Naivete was at a high when this case was introduced and though no substantiation was ever made this continues to be widely belived. The Anthrax attacks were used o gain some political capital for this war as well. while the connection is possible, once again, no substantiation was offered and yet it was widely belived. A pattern emerged in which a specter is rased, no probable cause shown, and each specter helps form a series of unsubstantiated allegations.

My inordinate insistence on statistical evidence in geopolitics, a field in which statistical evidence is faulty due to the innumerable influencing factors, was unfair but pointed for a reason. The case for this war was made in a way that insults one's intellectual curiosity. The decreased interest in validation of threat accessment is understandable. After all, "better safe than sorry" but anecdotal campaigns, though prevalent in political history, do not suit a plan to creativeky interpret self-defence.

You have stated in a pridian encounter that this war was poorly prosected. That the campaign was unecessarily devisive. I agree. This war included a fantastic propaganda effort domestically to ensure that if the vigourous international effort failed the domestic political capital would grant the mandate to set some influential precedents.

The precedents I speak of are preepmtion with no effort made to flesh out the specter being preempted. The boogyman of a mushroom cloud was enough to make the less curious domestic observer sign the blank sheet of paper while the international crowd was thrown mere bones to pick at.

I have held that since this idea was tossed to the public that my support for the war was contingient on the ability of the US to market it to the world. I did not care if the motivating factors were false as long as long as the proverbial wool could be pulled and the UN's sanction wrangled.

I did not believe that the world was ready to part with their definitions of self-defence and when this was validated emphatically the existence of the UN was threatened directly. I can give you direct quotes from the less hawkish members of the anministration pointedly saying that the UN must act (strong implication of "act in accord") on this or be irrelevant.

This assault on the UN is spurious. Our inability to make the case for a ground breaking war consoled itself in the ability to weild power to threaten decreased cooperation with those who were not convinced by our case.

My call for statistical proof is addmittedly unfair. But in light of the willingness to prosecute a war campaign with a minimal concern for factual support precipitated this. I have heard "the sky is falling" many a time in this campaign, I have been shown the promised land of a new more peaceful world. I have seen little effort to assuage my concerns that the trickiest of war scenarios (preemption, replacement of unfavorable regimes) is being marketed on anecdotal sound bytes. It might not be fair of me to place the statistical burden on you but I hold that a shoddy effort at campaigning for this war is more dangerous than anything but the most apocalyptic scenarios.

Reality in politics is what you are able to make others believe. This campaign was successful domestically, but on the stage where it will have the most effect, internationally, this effort was unsuccessful.




Agreed, and I would like to see the sanctity of borders and soveriegnity taken seriously and an effort made to make the case before they are trampled. As of yet there has not been a case made that this war is doing the noble acts you mention.





I agree, but hold dear to me the notion that modification of said structure and laws be made with a quorum, not individually. The UN has made efforts to increase its relevance in this arena. The WCC is the type of tool that, with others of the ilk, could have made the UN into a more effetive organization. Any effort made to consolidate natios behind an ideal is hampered by the USA's undermining of what it views as a equalizing threat. Justice is by its nature equal, equality is by it's nature unfavorable to those with disproportionate power. Iraq was not an urgent scenario. The impatience with the UN is not because the UN was brick walling but because the UN was considered a distraction from the very beginning.

Inspections were called a "dangerous distraction" and the UN was included only because of domestic pressure to do so. Since little import was placed on their cooperation this was done with the implication of, "either way we are going to do this, this is a done deal, care to play along?"

The UN was doomed when hawks decided that superior military rendered their inclusion an unnecessary luxury.



I have not seen complicity significant enough to justify the urgency. Regime changein Iraq was inevitable. complicity that would have necessitated the abandonment of the containment and woese yet the inspections was not demonstrated.




i do not share your notion of a new status quo, I do not share the opinion that updating the system is best addressed through a part with the ideals of lawfulness. Updating a system of this import would suggest a quorum be actively sought, not reluctantly consulted.





And here the tricky issue of who determines when a state supports terrorism rears its head. WMDs make good sound bytes. A dictator with a mustache begs to be infamous. We differ in that I do see some allegations of complicity in terror being arbitrarily postulated. It matters little what you or I think the world should see as an attack on it's systems. Wha matters is what the world sees as an affront to their systems. I suggest that if the world sees this war as more of a threat than the lack of one represents and when the neighbours of a nation that is suppsedly a threat do not share the concerns that the supporting ;logic for the war merits intense scrutiny.




Do you also posit that said laws be updated by avoiding the quorum? Do you posit that this war made those changes any more probable? I am uncomfortable with the notion of law being written though war and the disregard for the opinions of those who will be subject to said law.

Again, law is by its nature, collective morality. Individual morality is lawlessness when it contradicts the collectively defined morallity.




Yay! Now I get to play satirist.

I have a neighbour who is Christian. Being an atheist his incessant ramblings of me burning in hell for my desire to live a life he considers immoral are bothersome. I pose that his ideology is threatening because he prays that his god will punish me and teaches his children to avoid me (thus instilling hatred in them).

Once a travelling bum set fire to my garage and killed my cat. I could have died in this attack yet my neighbor cheered. I think my neighbor should die

He is notoriously unstable, once he tried to copulate with a poodle and had to be beaten till he could be removed from the poodle. He is now in a wheelchair and confined to his bedroom by the police.

They do not allow himaccess toi sharp objects and he is not allowed near me. Yet I feel threatened. He might form an alliance with the pyromaniac bum and seek to cause me harm.

The police do not agree, they think they have contained the man and tell me that if I think otherwise I should use the court as the appropriate venue.

Now the court is deliberately obtuse, the bastards neglect to consider my safety at all and are only willing toi grant a restraining order instead of the capital punishment I sought.

There are times when my survival dictates that I must act alone. In times of pending doom I must take a stand and lead. The neighborhood will be a better place if this unstable man is neutralized.

I have an old cannon in my garage, I think I can take the bastard out with a minimum of collateral damage. I will free his scions and adopt them. I will prevail.

I undseratand that some persons have cautioned that my self defense is not wise. I am forced to ignore them. If they can't provide my security they are irrelevant. I reject their notion that the burden of proof rests with me. The garage attack changed everything. They should prove to me that my neighbor is not a threat.






Here we disagree, I think the UN is blameless. A resolution was deemed a luxury not worth waiting for.




If uninvolved persons are targeted to address these concerns I posit that a dangerous paradox is born. If the goal starts to make the means unquestionable I posit that this is regression.




I posit that if law is collective morality defining new ones without the quorum is lawlessness.





I posit that this is mighty close:






Civilization is threatened by any deviance from the determined manner in which conflict is to be resolved. Civilization is threatened when civility is less likely to be employed than agression.




Agreed, but if statistical is unfair aI posit that a mere effort to illustrate how the generalized threat pertains to the justification of a particular case of unprovoked agression is withing reason.



Don't be too sure, the person whom I have most learned from is one whose ideology I fiercely oppose. My brother Lusatian's positions are not dissimilar to yours and our heated debates have cause much introspection and reevaluation of our positions. Often we switch sides throughout a 6 hour debate several times. Many a sleepless and enlightening night i tell ya. I can't wait until he and I can cross swords again with regularity.

I also suggest that our ideology might be similar but our priorities and perspective vastly different.