Guess I missed it - maybe it was on one of the threads I've been boycotting, but I have yet to see 1) any specifically evidenced, reasoned explanations coming from you as to why the US, rather than Saddam, bears responsibility for Saddam spending oil revenues on his palaces, his cronies, and his military, 2) much beyond incessantly repeated generalities justifying your admitted "hatred" of US foreign policy. On a previous thread, when I suggested that you might have absorbed Marxist unequal development theory from one or more of several typical sources (books, magazines, or pamphlets), you took personal offense and withdrew in a huff. If you'd rather not re-state positions that you've already expounded in detail, perhaps you can provide some links to the posts in which you clearly set out and explained your positions.
Religion and politics resurface as the new voices of Iraqi freedom Jonathan Steele Tuesday April 22, 2003 Hundreds of thousands of Shia worshippers from all over southern Iraq converged here yesterday at one of the sect's holiest shrines, in a deliberate display of political and religious strength. In Baghdad, a political springtime of a different kind is bursting out. They cannot yet mobilise in such impressive numbers as the Shia, but political parties which have not been allowed to operate legally for decades are hastening to set up shop again. "We are back," said Faris Faris, a member of the central committee of the Iraqi Communist party, as he watched comrades embracing each other on a Baghdad pavement beneath red flags and a banner saying "A free country for joyful people". The party has taken over an abandoned and looted building in a city suburb formerly used by the mukhabarat, Saddam Hussein's security police, which had offices, safe houses and interrogation centres all over the city. Old graffiti still cover the inner walls. "Always keep the enemy in your sights and don't let him get behind you," says one. "We've not yet had time to paint it out," said a smiling Mr Faris. "We are the oldest political party in Iraq," he added. "We had two ministers in the Ba'athist government from 1973 to 1979, but Saddam turned on us. Thirty-four leading members were hanged and 70,000 ordinary members were arrested, went into exile, or left the party. A few underground members remained in Baghdad and they have been coming out today to greet our return." Other parties are also squatting in deserted premises of the old regime. The Liberal Democratic Movement has taken over the building formerly used by the Union of Iraqi Students. The National Arab Democratic Movement is in a cultural centre. Ahmad Chalabi, who heads the US-funded Iraqi National Congress, has set up in one of Baghdad's top country clubs, the Hunting Club. Most Iraqis are too young to remember the period before the Ba'athists seized power in 1968, and in the new climate of unexpected freedom all parties are beginning with vague calls for democracy and national unity, embracing Sunni and Shia, Arabs and Kurds. But they are faced with a pressing decision on whether to cooperate with the US efforts under Jay Garner, a retired general, to put together an "interim authority" or transitional government. The communists refuse to take part. "Some people want Iraqis to bow down to foreigners. Others are like us and think we should build an independent national government on a temporary basis made up of all parties," Mr Faris said. The main opposition to US plans comes from the Shia religious leadership. Known as the al-Hawza al-Ilmiya, which means the supreme seat of Shia learning, it has already assumed power as a kind of shadow government for the 60% of Iraq's 24 million-strong population who are Shia. It began with orders to stop the looting, and for people who had stolen property to return it. Now it is moving directly into politics. On the outer wall of the Imam Hussein mosque in Kerbala, a poster from the Shia clerics says no one shouldorganise marches or join a political party without their permission. As Shia pilgrims marched to the holy city in huge columns yesterday to mourn the death in a battle at Kerbala in AD680 of Imman Hussein, grandson of the prophet Mohammed, many said they wanted Iraq to be ruled by religious leaders. "Only an Islamic party can represent us in government. We want a president from al-Hawza," said Qusay Sabri, as he dried himself on the banks of the Euphrates after a cooling swim. Scores of other men were resting on the river bank halfway through the 50-mile walk from Baghdad to Kerbala. "If the United States prevents us having a reli gious leader as president, we will reject it. If al-Hawza orders us to turn ourselves into bombs, we can make the US leave Iraq. We say 'Thank you for getting rid of Saddam. Now goodbye'," a pilgrim said. On the outskirts of Kerbala, Umm Zahra was standing by her front gate with a group of women dressed in long black dresses and veils. "I want an Islamic president," she said. "Only an educated clergyman can give us peace and security. We want the US troops to go." Despite their wish to get foreign troops out fast, more people in Kerbala than in Baghdad spontaneously wanted to thank the US and Britain for toppling Saddam. The Shia south suffered some of the worst repression of his rule. "Please tell Mr Blair 'God bless him'," said Abdullah Ganin, 34, an English teacher from Najaf. "If Bush wants to become a Muslim, he will enter paradise for sure," said a middle-aged man. Asked whether Iran was a good model, where religious leaders came to power in a wave of national unity after toppling a dictator in 1979 but then started their own repression, most pilgrims seemed to approve of the ayatollahs. Even Mr Faris of the Communist party took a relaxed view. "The Iranian precedent will not be repeated here. We have an agreement with the other parties not to use violence. It will be a civilised struggle. We will have a constitution which will enshrine respect for minority views."
Yeah let's go for another dictator which will probably be a muslim fanatic ! From one dictature to another that's the same kind of CIA plans ! If it doesn't become another dictature it will be at best a farce of democracy. They could have done with Saddam's regime long before as soon at least as the first Gulf War but they didn't. There are true democrats in these countries NEVER THEY FAVOR THESE they always FAVOR ANOTHER DICTATOR OF MAFFIA PROFILE. When I say "They" it is true also for THIS FUCK FALSE DEMOCRACY THAT IS EUROPE. >Scores of other men were resting on the river bank halfway >through the 50-mile walk from Baghdad to Kerbala. "If the >United States prevents us having a reli gious leader as >president, we will reject it. If al-Hawza orders us to turn >ourselves into bombs, we can make the US leave Iraq. We >say 'Thank you for getting rid of Saddam. Now goodbye'," a >pilgrim said.
Good grief Alfonso; if you're going to say something that stupid you could at least fake a stroke. I have never maintained that the US is the virgin-white innocent darling of the world. To my recollection, neither have Babak nor Kymar. You have this amazing ability (defect?) to somehow conclude from all of our collective posts that because we are overall supportive of the US, we're also either totally ignorant of or in extreme denial of the fact that there have been serious foreign policy blunders. For the last freakin' time: YES, THE U.S. HAS MADE SERIOUS MISTAKES IN FOREIGN POLICY. However, I will continue to maintain that many of the US' foreign policy errors were the result of the Cold War chess game or a case of choosing the lesser evil (i.e. supporting Saddam against Iran's Islamic revolution); that the US is right in its current action in Iraq; that the UN is an emasculated joke of an organization when it comes to policing the world; that the US should never be expected to allow an outside force to dictate what its national security policy should be; and that the US has done far more good for the world than it has bad. I will also continue to maintain that the idea you and many others have put forward of the US in essence withdrawing from the world stage militarily and politically is the most dangerous premise of all. I have yet to hear you state what you think would occur as a result - please do so. Finally, the chance of my mind being changed and my "world views being rocked to their very core" by your reasoning is approximately equal to the likelihood that msfe will become convinced that the Guardian is a worthless leftist rag and dgabriel becomes not only a "dittohead" but an avid fan of Michael Savage.
WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites), April 20 A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said. They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs. The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said. The Americans said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990's, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq's giant weapons plants. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._of_war__an_iraqi_scientist_is_said_to_assert
Well, well. I have to ask, then. If they were destroyed, then why not tell the world about it and thus avert the attack altogether? EDIT From the article: the Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, or MET Alpha, which found the scientist, declined to identify him, saying they feared he might be subject to reprisals. But they said that they considered him credible... Oh please. "Feared he might be subject to reprisals"? With the mighty US there to shield him? He's too shy to break this world headline grabbing news to the entire world? I don't know, I think I'll take this report with an extra large bucket of salt.
Perhaps it is you that is confused; you don't even seem to know what "facts" actually are. (But I agree with your statement; you yourself are indeed living proof of it.)
There is only one way to check American power and that is to support the euro George Monbiot Tuesday April 22, 2003 The Guardian The problem with American power is not that it's American. Most states with the resources and opportunities the US possesses would have done far worse. The problem is that one nation, effectively unchecked by any other, can, if it chooses, now determine how the rest of the world will live. Eventually, unless we stop it, it will use this power. So far, it has merely tested its new muscles. The presidential elections next year might prevent an immediate entanglement with another nation, but there is little doubt about the scope of the US government's ambitions. Already, it has begun to execute a slow but comprehensive coup against the international order, destroying or undermining the institutions that might have sought to restrain it. On these pages two weeks ago, James Woolsey, an influential hawk and formerly the director of the CIA, argued for a war lasting for decades "to extend democracy" to the entire Arab and Muslim world. Men who think like him - and there are plenty in Washington - are not monsters. They are simply responding to the opportunities that power presents, just as British politicians once responded to the vulnerability of non-European states and the weakness of their colonial competitors. America's threat to the peace and stability of the rest of the world is likely to persist, whether George Bush wins the next election or not. The critical question is how we stop it. Military means, of course, are useless. An economic boycott, of the kind suggested by many of the opponents of the war with Iraq, can never be more than symbolic: US trade has penetrated the economies of almost all other nations to such an extent that to boycott its goods and services would be to boycott our own. Until recently, as Bush's government sought international approval for its illegal war, there appeared to be some opportunities for restraint by diplomatic means. But now it has discovered that the United Nations is unnecessary: most of its electors will approve its acts of aggression with or without a prior diplomatic mandate. Only one means of containing the US remains. It is deadly and, if correctly deployed, insuperable. It rests within the hands of the people of the United Kingdom. Were it not for a monumental economic distortion, the US economy would, by now, have all but collapsed. It is not quite a West African basket case, but the size of the deficits and debts incurred by its profligacy would, by any conventional measure, suggest that it was in serious trouble. It survives only because conventional measures do not apply: the rest of the world has granted it an unnatural lease of life. Almost 70% of the world's currency reserves - the money that nations use to finance international trade and protect themselves against financial speculators - takes the form of US dollars. The dollar is used for this purpose because it is relatively stable, it is produced by a nation with a major share of world trade, and certain commodities, in particular oil, are denominated in it, which means that dollars are required to buy them. The US does very well from this arrangement. In order to earn dollars, other nations must provide goods and services to the US. When commodities are valued in dollars, the US needs do no more than print pieces of green paper to obtain them: it acquires them, in effect, for free. Once earned, other nations' dollar reserves must be invested back into the American economy. This inflow of money helps the US to finance its massive deficit. The only serious threat to the dollar's international dominance at the moment is the euro. Next year, when the European Union acquires 10 new members, its gross domestic product will be roughly the same as that of the US, and its population 60% bigger. If the euro is adopted by all the members of the union, which suffers from none of the major underlying crises afflicting the US economy, it will begin to look like a more stable and more attractive investment than the dollar. Only one further development would then be required to unseat the dollar as the pre-eminent global currency: nations would need to start trading oil in euros. Until last week, this was already beginning to happen. In November 2000, Saddam Hussein insisted that Iraq's oil be bought in euros. When the value of the euro rose, the country's revenues increased accordingly. As the analyst William Clark has suggested, the economic threat this represented might have been one of the reasons why the US government was so anxious to evict Saddam. But it may be unable to resist the greater danger. Last year, Javad Yarjani, a senior official at Opec, the oil producers' cartel, put forward several compelling reasons why his members might one day start selling their produce in euros. Europe is the Middle East's biggest trading partner; it imports more oil and petrol products than the US; it has a bigger share of global trade; and its external accounts are better balanced. One key tipping point, he suggested, could be the adoption of the euro by Europe's two principal oil producers: Norway and the United Kingdom, whose Brent crude is one of the "markers" for international oil prices. "This might," Yarjani said, "create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros." If this happens, oil importing nations will no longer need dollar reserves to buy oil. The demand for the dollar will fall, and its value is likely to decline. As the dollar slips, central banks will start to move their reserves into safer currencies such as the euro and possibly the yen and the yuan, precipitating further slippage. The US economy, followed rapidly by US power, could then be expected to falter or collapse. The global justice movement, of which I consider myself a member, has, by and large, opposed accession to the euro, arguing that it accelerates the concentration of economic and political power, reduces people's ability to influence monetary policy and threatens employment in the poorest nations and regions. Much of the movement will have drawn comfort from the new opinion polls suggesting that almost 70% of British voters now oppose the single currency, and from the hints dropped by the Treasury last week that British accession may be delayed until 2010. But it seems to me that the costs of integration are merely a new representation of the paradox of sovereignty. Small states or unaffiliated tribes have, throughout history, found that the only way to prevent themselves from being overrun by foreign powers was to surrender their autonomy and unite to fight their common enemy. To defend our sovereignty - and that of the rest of the world - from the US, we must yield some of our sovereignty to Europe. That we have a moral duty to contest the developing power of the US is surely evident. That we can contest it by no other means is equally obvious. Those of us who are concerned about American power must abandon our opposition to the euro. · www.monbiot.com.
msfe, Monbiot does make some very good points. I think he'd be too much of an extreme socialist (and some of views are a little whacky) for anyone here to bother reading him. Pity.