Guy Rundle in today’s Crikey (excerpt reproduced with permission):
One big story – or at least moment for stories – is the Iraq war, which turns five this week. Like most five-year-olds it can no longer comfortably be held, but nor can it be left unattended for a second, lest it pour the fishbowl into the toaster.
It has outpaced every war America has been involved in – including the revolution and Civil conflict – save for Vietnam, which, by this stage, was on the verge of the Tet offensive, which would pitch the US into a position of unwinnability.
It has long since outdistanced previous spending by an order of magnitude, and even the most rapid extraction plan will nevertheless drain it of billions dollars more. The country is now a Shia-dominated Balkanised fiction, with its sovereignty disregarded by its northern Kurdish de facto independent area – whose sovereignty is in turn disregarded by Turkey, essentially creating war conditions between two US allies.Oil revenues are being siphoned off by the stooges who have elected themselves to the Iraqi parliament, which drags its feet so as to extend the US protection of its Zaire-level corruption. Baghdad, a thriving city, even under Saddam, even under the sanctions, is in perpetual neighbourhood lockdown, whole streets of businesses and shops vanished in the four million tide of refugees. Even so, violence continues on a scale that is reasonable only by the charnel house levels of 2004-2007, and peace has been bought by paying and arming Sunni gangs, who will simply generate the next cycle of mayhem.
The green zone pseudo-government’s closest developing ties are with Iran, and about its only initiative – and one of its first – was to reintroduce sharia law, and drive women out of the professions and the public life they had enjoyed for decades previous. And still, with the collapsed health system, power outages and remnant violence, chances of premature death are higher than they were under Saddam at anytime in the last decade of his rule.
This is what US soldiers are now dying for – four thousand of them any day now, especially if, as seems likely, the “surge” is starting to fray at the edges. And that hides a bigger figure – the 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees and/or head-injured, and the hundreds of thousands of troops kept on two, three, four tours in direct contravention of the purpose of the “tour-of-duty” concept (i.e. to minimise permanent psychological damage) in the first place.
Essentially they are suffering and dying for the Iraqi elite to carve up the country and divert the oil funds into the treasure-chests they’re building up for the next round of conflicts. Yet no-one can bear too much reality, and Americans, who can’t even bear to forgo the cheesesteak fries with an order of chicken-fried chicken, are doubly unwilling to face the awful truth – that its soldiers died in vain, in a war based on lies and extending misery.
So has come the weirdest justification yet for staying in the conflict – that the war has to be won to make those previous losses meaningful. This is freakin’ mad, especially in a country founded on a revolution whose instigators thought was meaningful in the fighting of, not in the winning – and whose chances of success they estimated as 50:50 at best. If victory alone can make a conflict meaningful, then it never meant anything in the first place. Conversely, if the cause was right and just, no amount of bad luck or botched strategy can retrospectively render it futile.
No wonder he’s reduced to writing for Crikey.
Why do you say that? What does “reduced to writing for Crikey” mean? Where’s the analysis wrong?
I preferred Jeff Sparrow’s piece on Chickenhawks!
Shorter CMc: “If I had a bat and a home to go to, I’d take my bat and go home.”
There is no sane foreign policy justification for Bush’s approach to the Iraq War.
However, any suffering that prevents the final implosion of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party before the November elction is, according to the Bush Claque (a pathetically small rump by now) justifiable suffering.
This is commonly called the sunk cost fallacy. No matter how much you’ve spent on a project, you can’t get it back. The rational decision is: given how matters currently stand and given the likely cost to complete, is it worth continuing or better to cut and run?
The great tragedy of Iraq is now that the surge has worked we are hearing that the former insurgents initially fought the US because they fought the US was going to steal its oil. Now 5 years later with not one barrel stolen they have realised what a lie the “No War for Oil” meme was. How easy the AQI and BA’Athist propaganda chief’s jobs were made by the Left with constant near perfect reinforcement of their message.
We see analysis from Harvard that after each call for withdrawal violent attacks spike 10%. 10% is in fact a big number as the insurgents commanders had to do this impromptu with no planning time without putting their insurgents at too much risk.
As for most of Rundles claims he is still living in 2006 and hostage to all the old leftie cnspiracy theories. Eg Apparently the leadership “elected themselves” to parliament. Yep those millions of people you saw vote, that was an elaborate hoax. The man is hopelessly deluded.
“The man is hopelessly deluded.”
Pot meets kettle with mirror for exciting moment of three-way self-realisation.
For more on the stalled pace of political reforms see Left-Wing Conspiracist and Politburo Chairman David Petraeus.
It’s pretty rich for people like Kingsley to wave petty ideological bullshit around at this stage. This is not fun and games. This is beyond idiotic point-scoring “will you denounce” shell games. No one gives a rats which boomer polemicist said something stupid this week. If you want to discuss Iraq have the decency to treat it with the gravity and consideration it merits.
Kingsley-’Teh Surge’ has worked? For whom?
Kingsley,
If the USA has not been able to steal Iraq’s oil yet, it’s not for lack of trying.
Big Oil consultants helped draft the Oil Laws which Bush cannot get pushed through the Iraqi parliament: they include Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which will ensure multinational oil corporations keep Iraqi oil profits for generations to come. Both Sunni and Shiite politicians know that signing such laws into action would be political suicide (and probably lead to their assassination too).
Production sharing agreements represent stealing because???????
a) Sure beats 1850
b) Dude, John Howard was PM in 2006. Those days are long gone.
2 Kim Mar 17th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Crikey under Stephen Mayne was contrarian without being doctrinaire. It is now an embarassingly partisan convalescent home for cranky Left-wing journos and hackademics.
The analysis is wrong in respect to the Vietnam analogy. It is a bad idea for Leftists to compare the VN war to Iraq war, given that the former compares much more favourably to the latter.
Guy Rundle says:
This is a tendentious representation of history. The US could have won the Vietnam War in the post-1968 phase, with sufficient political will. Its possible that, if the US had decided to stay the course then, South Vietnam would be in the same situation that South Korea is in today.
That does not justify the whole US involvement inthe VN war. Merely the US’s possible option to continue at that late stage.
By the end of 1968 the US military more or less defeated the NLF insurgency. The NLF and PAVN were so badly beaten about they had to retire to Cambodian sanctuaries, which dragged that unfortunate country into the war.
After the defeat of the NLF in Tet the war switched to a main force fight against the PAVN: ARVN on the ground and USAF in the air. The PAVN was never going to march on Saigon so long as the US guaranteed air support for ARVN. The success of Operation Linebacker proved that even a Soviet backed PAVN was no match for US aerial forces.
The SVN govt had also attained some legitimacy through elections of a sort - more than the communist dictatorship in the North. But the US govt lost legitimacy through domestic social problems - the cultural revolution’s effect on military discipline - and dirty dealings by Nixon - Watergate, covert wars and so on. This proves that US political legitimacy is a key issue in any US-backed counter-insurgency.
It is impressive that the US military continues to maintain and improve discipline in the field, as well as persevering in its mission, which is the consolidation of an Iraqi state. Unfortunately, US political inclinations depends on Iraqi political institutions. These are largely illusory. Iraq is not a nation state, it is a collection of tribal fiefs held together by bribes and bombs.
As soon as the US leaves the Iraqias will return to their traditional way of life which is conducting raids on their close neighbours and threatening their more distant ones. We should get the hell out of this god-saken land at the earliest convenience and leave these fractious peoples to their own (Improvised Explosive) Devices.
Which guarantee was withdrawn by Ted Kennedy in 1975. At which time the NVA was mounting an
So US political will can make a differenc.
It is impressive that the US military continues to maintain and improve discipline in the field, as well as persevering in its mission, which is the consolidation of an Iraqi state.
I will confine my remarks to this one point in a remarkably tendentious rewrite of the history of the illegal US invasion of Iraq. Just when did the US officially adopt this definition of its mission to invade and occupy Iraq, and how does the adoption of this post facto ‘mission statement’ entirely concocted by you, change anything about the reality of the whole exercise which was nothing more than a ‘war of choice’ conducted because a very powerful State (the US) took it upon itself to assume that legal entitlement flows from military capacity?
Debbieanne - umm maybe the people of Iraq who have seen violence levels collapse, or do you think more violence equals success?
Leinad - How very high and almighty of you. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong rather than pretending to be Mr Gravitas.
Perhaps you can show why the Harvard research is not serious?
One post later and Jarrapilla is trying to claim normal commercial negotiation represents the US stealing oil. Yep the US is trying to steal oil from Iraq by submitting Production sharing agreements to Iraq’s parliament. Remind me again which side is being serious about this issue.
Kingsley-Ah, of course. Things had improved, for a while. Violence (death of Iraqi’s, and US soldiers) is now increasing again. See Juan Cole, re Petraus, who states that things are getting worse. [link]
Life for most Iraqi’s hasn’t improved a jot anyway.
Collapse, from the charnel of early 2007, to merely what they were at the start of 2006, which was the bloodiest year ever at the time, following the bloody heights of 2005, and 2004 before it. By this rubric you could say non-intervention in the Rwandan conflict was a success in 1996.
The reduction in violence brought by the Surge and the payoff of the Sunni insurgency has not resulted in any meaningful steps towards ending the political, ethnic and sectarian tensions that are the underlying source of the current nightmare. There are signs that the accord between the ‘Sons of Iraq/National Awakening/Concerned Local Citizens/Sunni Insurgents We’re Paying Not To Shoot Us’ and the US are fraying, and the killings have started to trend upwards. If this goes on we are going to be back where we were pre-Surge, with less resources and a refreshed Sunni insurgent bloc.
For the bourgeois ( is there any other?) Marxist inclined like Rundle, the ’sunk costs fallacy’ smacks of teh dreaded demon capitalism. So I understand a flake* like Rundle not using it. Maybe LP might consider the metaphor when linking to Crikey from now on?
A boy can dream in a free market for ideas can’t he?
* Rundle recently praised John W McCain as a ‘Maverick’!
Strocchi’s fantasising on two lost wars on the Asian mainland is pure comedy.
Here’s the central dynamic of the Iraq fiasco: everyone, but everyone, is waiting for the clock to run down.
Except for the Sunni clients of the US, all the other main parties believe that their desired settlement will be easier to achieve after the Americans leave.
Like in an AFL game the US is 6 goals down. There are two minutes of game time. But the US has flooded back to stop the game becoming a rout. That is the actual aim of the “Surge”.
Meantime the rejectionists of any US settlement (they can’t agree among themselves) have all brought their own ball. They see no point in attacking and in giving the US any possibility of achieving momentum. They are spinning their own ball around their backline, waiting for the siren to blow.
The siren (the November election) represents the elapse of time in this game.
After the US trudge defeated off the field, the real game for the control of Iraq will commence.
Meantime the US will be internally riven, internationally friendless, and bankrupt.
Katz - again you are building your whole assessment on the Americans leaving some time soon. Where’s the evidence of this beyond Obama mouthing off? Even he’s talking 16 months from his election. The ISF will be well and truly ready by then and that’s assuming Obama wins which given the revelations about his Pastor look somewhat less likely now.
Leinad as for your “signs” whoopee is that it? This is no bigger deal than the “stand off” we saw in Diyala a few weeks back when less than 5% of the SoI stood down for about a fortnight. Of course there will be some disputes.
Regarding Petraeus saying there has not been enough political progress - He is right. Whose disputing this? Clearly those things take time they are no more slothful than most parliaments.
What can’t be denied is Iraq is more peaceful than it was and there have been some peices of key legislation get through.
We aren’t saying Iraq is completely fixed only significantly better. But clearly some a desperate to deny any progress and try to find the “yeah but” to every piece of progress.
Why can’t the Left say “Iraq was bad but thankfully it has got better”?
Why must it say “everything good you’ve heard is wrong, Iraq can only be bad”
Right, the violence is down to merely horrendous levels as opposed to catastrophic.
As for progress: the Surge is temporary. It is stretching the limits of US manpower. The Surge is only justifiable if it delivers tangible political results. There was an attempt to get some important reconcilatory legislation passed (an amnesty for Sunni prisoners, the annual budget, and a bill setting up provincial elections - all of which was bundled into one bill, unconstitutionally) but it has been held up by the Presidential Council. Your panglossian ‘oh this isn’t more slothful than any other parliament, pip, pip’ take on this is particularly disturbing - this isn’t your average parliament, all of the interest groups within represent large, armed sectarian factions and the provincial elections legislation has the potential to ignite a bloody factional fight between the ISCI and the Sadrists if it isn’t handled fairly.
The critical oil revenues, federalism and DeBaathification issues have not been resolved, and there’s nothing on the horizon suggesting they will be. In the meantime, Baghdad has gone from being an ethnically mixed, diverse city to a largely Shia one, with fortified sectarian enclaves the rule. The US has started arming and paying Sunni insurgents, a move that has resulted in a short term decrease in violence but spells trouble in big neon letters unless it is accompanied by improved Sunni representation and power-sharing within the Govt. this hasn’t eventuated over the last eight months, on the contrary the IAF left the Maliki government and the Sadrists ended up drafting the DeBaathification legislation.
Can you see why I’m not optimistic here? I don’t think Iraq can only be a source of bad news, what I do think is that it needs to be understood on its own terms, and that means recognising that there are deep-seated issues that go beyond the US and what it wants. Your perspective is warped by the need to crush your ideological foes, so naturally you focus on the US, identify with it, and toe it’s line. As if a few months of ‘good (i.e. not quite so dire) news’ is something to be seized upon to bash carping lefties with. It’s silly. It’s pointless. It’s morbid. It’s the same thing Pilger and co do, contorting a complex situation into a parable of “why my politics is right”. Iraqis don’t give a shit.
This one will certainly go to extra-time though, Katzenschaft. About a decade of it. Until the US can clearly see their way to the post-oil economy nobody will be gutsy enough to pull the plug on the region. (A bit like the bloke who never got sacked for buying IBM.)
It took years for the US to de-escalate after LBJ’s concession of defeat in March 1968.
Yet no one with any brains expected the US to ramp up its troop commitments after Tet 1968.
All of that palaver about “Vietnamization” was simply to cover up a collapse of US will to stay the course in Vietnam.
Sixteen months while the next administration fumbles around in the dark for the door handle to the Iraq exit?
Pffft. It’s nothing.
WBB,
US oil companies pay the world price for oil, just like all other consumers.
While it is true that the Cheney/Bush wet dream re Iraq was originally a cartel of US minor oil companies (Cheney/Bush cronies based in Houston) gaining a stranglehold over oil production in Iraq, that dream has long evaporated.
The best that Cheney/Bush can hope for now is that Iraqi oil comes onto the world market in any guise at all.
I have no direct evidence of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised that any Saudi decision to increase oil production to drive down the price of oil in the run-up to the Nov US elections is linked to tangible signs that the US has begun to act to de-escalate in Iraq.
Certainly Snarlin’ Dick Cheney was able to wrest nothing from the Saudis during his last visit to the Kingdom earlier this year.
FWIW, I am willing to predict that there will be 80,000+ US troops in Iraq on January 20, 2011 regardless of who wins in November.
(though I do like McCain’s defense of a potential withdrawal in 12008, that’d be hilarious)
To be fair to McCain, I think he said 2108!
Kim: he gives a range of potential dates here: 2108, 3008, 12008.
I stand corrected!
Will the Dark Star be moving into battle formation?
I am confident the last rebel bases are on the verge of surrender, your Kimness, Emperor McCain has drained the Galaxy dry for the final offensive - we will not fail him!
A spoting proposition!
I’d like a piece of that gambling action.
I’ll say fewer than 30,000 by that date. If so I win. If the number of troops is between 30,000 and 80,000 then a draw and no one collects.
Name your stake.
Sporting proposition indeed. Any such contest will be worthless without the participation of Jack Strocchi.
(I’ll go for the long odds option—I predict that on January 11, 2011, the United States will have 0 ground troops in Iraq).
I don’t know if anyone else has brought this up, but the fact of the matter is that the US will not be able to fund this war beyond the next year at the maximum. The US financial system is currently in a state of crisis with the 5th largest investment bank in the country having to be bailed out to the tune of 30 billion by the US Federal Reserve. The US is $7 trillion in debt. The US dollar is sinking. The rest of the world is sick of funding the US living beyond its means, and the only solution the FR has is to reduce interest rates and bail out financial institutions.
Sooner or later the FR will run out of money, so they’ll have to print more. And that will really be the beggining of the end.
The American experiment is at an end (although like most declining empires it will take some time) and you can be sure that the smart money will be heading elsewhere. The disastrous and insane invasion of Iraq will be one of the first casualties of the US financial crisis, and anyone who thinks it’ll last beyond 2009 has got rocks in their head
Adrian, that’s been every leftist’s wet dream for over 50 years now, and it’ll stay one too.
What a stupid comment Craig Mc, but par for your course. I’ve no reason to delight in the downfall of America, but people like you are going to have to face reality sooner or later.
And as usual, you fail to engage with the facts when they don’t coincide with your version of reality. People like Stephen Mayne (hardly a leftist) have seen the writing on the wall, and I think I prefer their analysis to your sad one liners.
Katz. Most oil may be traded at the world price. That much is true. The world price is not the determinant of who gets to buy the oil however. Oil is not sold on the mythical world market.
China drills for oil in Sudan and ships it back to China where it is sold at a price to mostly Chinese buyers (at possibly the world benchmark price - it doesn’t matter.) Nymex buyers don’t get a look in.
The US did not invade Iraq so that Bush’s mates could personally profit; the US invaded so that it could put that oil on the Nymex market (at “world market” prices).
If it didn’t matter who drilled the oil; and to which port it got shipped - if all oil was sold in an orderly world market where all buyers were given equal treatment - then your point might hold. But none of those conditions pertain.
Oil is not about profits anymore. It is about access.
And so does the US.
(80,000 troops in 2011 !)
WBB,
The China/Sudan model may be the way of the future, who knows? But at the moment it is quite anomalous.
Even Venezuelan oil finds itself in US gas tanks.
I agree that now the Bush Clique has decided that the delivery of oil to the world market is a desirable and achievable ambition. However, their initial ambition was more complex than that.
Cheney’s cronies were always going to deliver Iraqi oil to the world market. The notion that Iraqi oil was to be reserved for US gas tanks is absurd.
The crony profit angle came not from the delivery of Iraqi oil, but from the way in which profits were divided up. US minor oil companies wanted Iraqi laws that reduced the ability of the Iraqi government to dictate the share of royalties to be divided between the Iraqi government (theoretically on behalf of the Iraqi people) and oil exploration and drilling companies.
If these companies could maximise profits then those profits would be repatriated to the US, making Houstonians very wealthy folks indeed, as well as their shareholders.
OK, while we’re running a book: There are about 20k troops in Guam, 30k in South Korea, 47k in Japan. Given the somewhat more tenuous nature of Iraq the US should keep troop numbers at or above 50k for at least a decade.
They should be there as a last resort guarantee and only in combat operations for exceptional reasons. Otherwise they should be exercising and polishing quietly out of view from the general population. They’d probably leave heavy equipment for more troops, but fly them in only if necessary.
That’s assuming the Iraqi government agrees to a permanent base of course. If not, Kuwait’s just across the border. So one way or another, I’ll say 50k.
Bear in mind that the US Navy will still be stationed in the Gulf as long as there’s oil there - even if the Obamessiah comes. That would probably account for 10k troops right there.
I missed the brutal Guamian insurgency against US occupation, how is it going?
Resistance seems to have faded since 1945, but it’s too early to tell if the surge is working. Apparently.
Don’t eat the cycads.
The Iraq war is costing $US12 billion a month, according to those lefties at NBC.
But what the hell, dead-eyed Dick thinks it’s been worth it: link
I reckon Chimpo could defeat the Guamian Cycads.
well, here’s the exile on how Russia and Iran have benefited from Neocon stupidity. [link]
And while you’re at it, read this. Its hilarious. Canadian dollar surpasses greenback. Bahah!
[link]
For a very good reason. If Chavez completely flipped out tomorrow morning and halted all oil supply to the US there would be global economic turmoil as the US economy skidded to a halt. Soon after there’d be another small war to read about.
Chavez is slowly trying to shift the proportion of his oil exports away form the US and towards other customers in China and India.
That is not done thru a transparent market price mechanism. It’s done thru government sanctioned trading agreements. Oil is as free a market as are cafes in Lygon Street or any other “vibrant” business strip. (This may have changed, I dunno, but it’s convenient shorthand!)
If the US occupied Venezuela it would not have to worry about the future of 10% of its daily petroleum requirements. But it doesn’t and so it does have to worry. (Hence the intermittent mentions of Chavez in our news bulletins. There will be an “Office of Special Plans” for Venezuela somewhere in the US govt. apparatus. Well, not somewhere. It’ll be in Cheney’s office, obviously. He is an oil hawk.)
In Iraq if the neocon plan succeeds (which is still unlikey) the US will not have to worry about 30% of its daily oil appetite in ten years time.
It’s only absurd if that notion is envisioned in literal terms. It is not absurd when understood in terms that equate to the US wanting to ensure it keeps at current levels its access to 25% of the world’s daily oil production. With the rise of China and India et al, it cannot do that on price alone.
If oil was perfectly fungible then the US share of global oil consumption must inevitably decline. (Given world peace.)
The US must to retard thier downward trajectory as long as they can and as long as there is no viable alternative to the oil economy. It’s pole position in oil markets and its dollar hegemony give it disproportionate power & wealth. For zero-summmers like Cheney that is the be all and end all.
The Iraq tragedy should not be dismissed as just the bumbling of a failed oil man out to enrich his mates. (Even though that’s part of it - like much else, including the grandiose neocon Wolfowitz nonsense.)
wbb: Venezuala’s crude is of the “sour” variety (high sulphur content). From what I’ve read the only refineries capable of cracking it are in the USA. Most likely you’ll sell it where you refine it.
Chavez is stripping his oil industry the same way kleptocracies everywhere do. Their production is dropping as a result. Soon the Americans will be the least of his problems. It’s a problem not unique to socialist nutbags. Mexico’s Pemex is another sterling example.
Never mind all the ins and outs of geo-oil geo-politics, the central and basic fact remains - the richest and most powerful and influential country in human history led an invasion of a tinpot third-world dictatorship. And yet five years it’s still a bloody mess, everyone concerned is going broke and oil has reached record price heights.
It takes an uncanny kind of incompetence to lose money on invading a place sitting on top of several trillion dollars worth of a vital resource for the whole bloody planet.
Fuck morality, ethics and even the rule of international law, we’re talking about massive management incompetence here. On a scale that makes Enron look like fiddling the till at the local milkbar.
This is beyond ideology - it’s colossal stupidity.
Speaking of which, the yanks are now spending US$400 million on a helicopter..
That’s one helicopter each @ nearly half billion a unit. Admittedly the US dollar is not what it was but really the Empire has quite lost the plot now hasn’t it?
Yes indeed Nabs.
As Talleyrand (a particular favourite of mine) observed, “It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.”
That helicopter is the American equivalent of the Great Pyramid of Cheops: an incredibly expensive machine that offers the illusion of immortality to a Pharaoh.
“They must be able to jam seeking devices, fend off incoming missiles and resist some of the electromagnetic effects of a nuclear blast. They also must have videoconferencing and encrypted communications gear to allow the president to instantly reach advisers, military officers and foreign leaders.”
MYOB Exonet and Excel Spreadsheet an advantageous, must be above average keyboard skills. The successful applicant will be bright and well-present, a self-starter which is attentive in detial and keen to input the Presidential short-travel program impactfully. Marine One is a equal opportunity employer. Muslin, homosexuality and Euro-Brit aerospace conglomerate helicopters encourage to apply.
One hotshot on the stick, one lame copilot, one agricultural approach over the Rose Garden, a bit of rotor droop…and it could all end up in flames anyway.
The best Vietnam analogy wrt Iraq has always been Dien Bien Phu, albeit this time it’s happening on a much grander, geo-strategic empire-imploding scale (and without your Marcel Bigeards to at least make a decent fight of it).
Hence I think we should start renaming the US presence along appropriate historical lines:
Embassy/’International’ zone: Hedgehog ‘Laura’
al-Balab: ‘Monica’
al-Talil: ‘Marilyn’
al-Asad: ‘Eleanor’
al-Kayyara: ‘Hillary’
Camp Cook: ‘Madonna’
Camp Marez: ‘Minnie’
Irbil: ‘Rosa’, even…
The usual narcissistic, fatally-deluding cultural
signpostsmirrors along a self-destructing global empire’sstreetsuperhighway without joy.That was sort of the case in the past. China (eg Sinopec) has been bldg its heavy crude refinery capacity in the last few years.
Oil security is played out over long times frames as infrastructure, transport and the politics all take a long time to put into place.
Jack, if your DienBienPhu prophecy is correct, then should we expect the US to become - in 50 years or so - like France today?
No visible empire, plenty of influence in its old domains (Africa inc North Africa, mid-East for France); medium sized nation with massive ego and prestensions to global pre-eminence; making arty films [at last] for SBS; producing “philosophes” to spread sophistry across too many nations; ummm I can’t decide how the “Alliance Francaise” would translate - an Institoot Fer Ghetto Talk? - a Chicago Symphony Rap Choir touring the world?
cheerio
Yes, China does seem to be able to ingratiate itself to regimes that have achieved sovereign ownership of oil against the demands of private oil interests.
This system of oil politics may indeed be the way of the future. The alternative so far has been weak states with a grievance against the way in which the economics of oil have been imposed by trickery, subversion, or at the point of a gun.
Take-away message: China had managed to convince its strategic partners that it respects its partners’ sovereignty.
Why, oh why, does that feat appear to be such a difficult task for the US to achieve?
I find that people who talk about things they truly do not understand seem to have a birds eye view of every problem that faces the earth. my opinion is that not make assumptions if you yourself did not live in that country. Me and my whole family are iraqi and the trouble we ever had their previously was a few power shortages everyweek. I would rather power shortages anyday over an american infested land where the death toll has risen post-infestation. America needs to justify its reasons why it entered in the first place. Osama doesnt live there?
Mahmoud - did you leave recently? Where are you now?
These questions aren’t challenges to your comments, I’m just interested in the views of Iraqi exiles/refugees.
Me and my family left iraq because of the gulf war, but we were not illegal, our travel was offical and we all have permenant visa’s here, we are all australian citizens aswell. the way i interpreted your article is that you are glorifiying america’s occupation and making the iraqis (esp sunni’s) look like the bad guys. when people get pushed, and pushed and pushed t a certain extent they seem to do things that will make one think about one’s worth, if i occupied you house andmade you watch me rape your mother ands sisters im sure you would also do something extreme thus making you look like the insane villian and the occupier (me) look like the good guy, the guy thats trying to make teh world a better place. keep in mind that refugees and exiles are human and that just because the media portrays them as dirty, poor sleep-in-the-gutter type of people does not mean that thay are. if you ran away from a place because of your own person saftey what right does that give me to say that you are not in teh same league as everybody else?
Well, you’ve got the blog post and the article it quotes all back to front.
General opinion around here (with some disagreement, which is usually encouraged for a good debate to occur) is that the Iraq invasion was crazy, illegal and immoral. Badly planned, badly executed, and founded on America’s need to control resources (as well as crazy neo-con dreams we needn’t go into here).
The reason I asked you for more info is that Iraq’s long term future has been damaged not just by bombs and guns, but by people like you leaving to escape them.
If you had come here illegally I would welcome you as a refugee.
so your saying the future of the country is damaged because i didnt risk my life staying in a war-zone?….fair enough, so i should stay and try and help the counrty out while dodgeing bullets from both sides, american and native…..once a country is the corrider of war, there is only one door out. one side wins and one side loses. there is no such thing as agreed peace, even though it may seem like its a good idea it will be very quick before the fire is back.
so my country is further damaged because i didnt want to risk my life in a war torn counrty?….do you really think thats a fair statement?
Oh shit.
No, I was not trying to blame you for anything. Please don’t be defensive. People protect themselves and their families because that is the most basic human instinct. I’m just saying that one of the big problems with the project to “rebuild” Iraq is that some of the best and brightest Iraqis have been forced to flee by invasion and instability. If that continues, the only people left will be those who really WANT to keep fighting, which will of course lead to utter ruination.
Basically, I’m saying that it’s a shame you had to leave, not that you were wrong to leave. I have absolutely no idea what it must have been like for you, so I couldn’t possibly judge you for anything you’ve done or not done.
ok war basically means two things -1. the counrty becomes a war zone which means eventually everyone leaves excpet for those who are a) troops (from either side) or b) people who love that counrty and refuse to leave regardless of their saftey (ussually old people who have very fond memories there). isnt the whole point of war to either kill everyone and find what you want or somehow get everyone out?..well it seems to be working very well. :), i think you need to further study the whole concept of war and why people do it.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes.
Iraq war = bad idea, badly done (whatever the objectives).
Refugees from war = welcome in Australia as far as I’m concerned.
The whole thing = a horrible mess I can’t see a solution for.
lol i dont think there is a solution to the iraq war, as far as im concered there isnt a peaceful solution to any war.
I meant a “solution” (too simplistic a word, but there you go) to Iraq’s future.
as in a complex step by step procedure?
I suppose so.
Mahmoud wrote “isnt the whole point of war to either kill everyone and find what you want or somehow get everyone out?..”
I think you’re being a bit unfair on our old friend WAR. He doesn’t usually try to kill everyone !! He just has a go, to see how much he can destroy before that pathetic wimp PEACE turns up.
Sorry Mahmoud, I’m being very sad and making stupid jokes. Best wishes to your family and let’s hope they can sort out a peacefuil solution in your land one day.
You are quite correct to notice that most people posting comments here are not Iraqi.
Salaam.
quote “guns dont kill people, apes with guns kill people”
do u really think apes are capable of such actions?
if i see an ape put togther something from ikea id be pretty surprised..lol
nah Ambigulous, its ok..i enjoy a good joke
but thank you very much for your regards….it means alot
Meanwhile Lord Dolly Downer has extracted himself from the luncheon table to present his obiter dicta on Iraq:
[My emphases]
I’d like to ask Mahmoud how long he thinks that time mentioned by ex-Minister Downer may be.
And does he think that a withdrawal of US troops would result in genocide in Iraq?
well firstly what makes the US troops any better than the domestic security and any other forces in iraq?….i assure you that if US troops leave then all the problems will be on a road to peace. as for the terriosm part of it please define terrorism, the dictionary meaning is this:
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
now please explain to me why there are photos of 6 year old kids throwing rocks at american troops? and not the what you would call ‘domestic security’?
Sorry Mahmoud. I’ve reviewed every post on this thread to see who could have said such a silly thing, but I must have missed it. Could you point out the post where it was said? Thanks.
no-one in here has said but a famous american leader has (the name i cant remember)….ironic isnt it?
well im out…might be back a lil later..plz feel free to e-mail me or add me on msn - mahmoudsaaid_666@hotmail.com
lol dont worry i made this e-mail a very long time ago….(im no anti-christ)
How can this American leader be famous if you can’t even remember his or her name? That’s not to much effort is it if you think the quote worth citing?
Are you sure you are not just making this up?
Im a %110 sure i havent made it up, im human and i forget things…..but someone did say it…..look it up if u like..
Charlton Heston said it. And he was an American leader. Some thought, erroneously that he was great, too, even if, as we know, he was actually a stoopid prick.
Mahmoud 1 - GregM 0.
Because the US still thinks it is da bomb. Old habits.
Imagine the globe as a chess board; the black squares; the white squares; the oil fields; the military bases; the diagonals as shipping routes; the columns as political allegiances etc etc. Each move a decade.
China has the USA mate in about 3 or 4.
see, i knew someone had said it…..its quite a good saying aswell,
so yeah………i see the americans as the apes, and the iraqi military as the apes aswell……but then again killing each other doesnt count cause none of them are ‘people’, civilians are people….so u kill a civilian your an ape, you kill an opposing enemy: your doing your job!
hey im just curios but how exactly do i write a blog?….this is my first time on this site, ive only discovered how to leave comments and nothing else…can someone help me out?
cheers
Umm…folks, I’m starting to suspect Mahmoud’s some kind of agitprop set up. By whom to prove what point I don’t know but his grammar, syntax and references are not really that internally consistent. For example, compare and contrast:
“the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”
with
“Im a %110 sure i havent made it up, im human and i forget things…..but someone did say it…..look it up if u like..”
If you saw those comments under different names, would you say they’re the same person? I reckon someone’s trying something on here but their command of faux naiveté is not quite as sophisticated as they think.
I offer a bottle of 12 year old Islay or Speyside single malt to anyone that can conclusively prove me wrong*
*Offer does include Mahmoud and members of his immediate and possible real family.
“hey im just curios but how exactly do i write a blog?”
You could start by spelling ‘curiou’s as correctly as you spell ‘ideological’.
Hmm.So could I.
For ‘curiou’s read ‘curious’.
But I think my original point stands- that even an idiosyncratic grasp of the English language still has its own internal logic. Whereas ‘Mahmoud’ seems to be trying a bit too hard to show he’s not a native English speaker.
Yes Nabs.
Sophisticated use of elision.
Odd mixture of pidjin and SMS vocab.
But not, I think, one of our more persistent trolls, unless the subtext in the comments so far is some kind of Trojan Horse strategy.
Where did Charlton Heston ever say it? Give us a link to something that cites him making that quote.
Or are you making things up too?
GregM - OK, say Heston didn’t actually say it. But it was quite widely held that he did. At least 17 Google hits. Nothing to sneeze at. Oh OK.
wbb 0 - GregM 1
Nabakov @ [79]
Really and truly… ! Read what Mahmoud wrote. He was giving a dictionary definition. My guess is, he copied it out faithfully, word for word. Of course the spewlling and syntax were good.
I suggest you may wish to consider your attitude to newcomers on this blog. Sounds like you’re writing in a similar vein to Sorcerer a few weeks back, who said that (I’m paraphrasing) “people who disagree with my left views shouldn’t post here”.
So this time an apparent Iraqi Australian takes the time to discuss the thread topic, one in which I imagine he has a strong interest, and you set the Troll-sniffing dogs onto him. Pathetic.
Of course you’re free to disagree with Mahmoud, just as any of us are free to disagree with him or with you. But why follow the rule that says “When I hear Opposing Views I Reach For My Troll Spray”? Sounds a bit Goeringesque to me, cobber. This is Australia, not some shabby little dictatorship where disputes are settled by volleys of bullets, cobber.
Mahmoud’s spelling is superior to my speWlling