There's No Oil in Mass Graves


Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

And excuse me but bush is a f***ing bastard.

Not that I'm disagreeing here Peapod, but actually I think Bush is himself a puppet and doesn't really know what's going on. That's the most charitable explanation I can put on his behaviour.

The real powers in the Excited States of America in the last four years were Rumsfeldt, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. In particular, Google on Paul Wolfowitz and read some of the stuff he's written. He's a frightening guy, a serious war hawk who thinks the USA is perfectly entitled to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants, just because it can. Iraq has been a target of the Bush administration from the beginning, and I suspect that the thinking among those three after 11 Sept 2001 was something like "find some way to blame this on Iraq." I'm sure you've all seen some of the same poll results I have, about the number of Americans who believe Sodamn Insane had something to do with that attack, and that he was somehow in league with Osama bin Laden. To any informed person, that lacks all credibility. Sodamn's Baathist party was a socialist, secular organization, anathema to a fundamentalist crackpot like Osama. The Iraqi government was one of the ones Osama wanted to topple and replace with a fundamentalist Islamic one; the invasion of Iraq and the completely predictable unrest there now just plays into his hands.

I'm sure most of us agree that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do, it was done for the wrong (and mostly made up) reasons, and there was not proper planning about what to do after the regime had been knocked down. However, as somebody's pointed out here previously, what's done is done and that's the reality we have to deal with. If American and British forces pulled out now, I'm fairly sure the result would be a bloody and protracted civil war in Iraq with at least three sides: Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. And probably a fourth side too, foreign Islamic radicals who want a fundamentalist Islamic state there. Then Turkey and Iran might be drawn in... ugh, doesn't bear thinking about on a pleasant Sunday afternoon.

But it's not, and has never been, just about oil. It's about making the world safe for certain powerful private American interests, like Halliburton and Bechtel, and the only difference between a Republican and a Democratic administration in the U.S. that I can see is who they want to write them the cheques that'll tell them what their priorities ought to be, and what parts of the federal government they want to get bigger.

Not so different from here, actually, except for the theocratic nature of the present U.S. administration...

Dex
 
Reverend Blair
#32
Quote:

But what should the US army do? Leave Iraq? Yes, according to you. But slowly. How do you explain that to Iraqi insurgents?

You don't explain it to the insurgents, you explain it to the Iraqi people, offer insurgents an amnesty if they stop their attacks, then put in peace-keepers. Those peace keepers have to have a large contingent from Muslim nations and they have to be able to return fire as part of their mandate.

The thing is that the number of insurgents will drop off when the US starts leaving as long as the UN is seen to be honest in their intentions. The Iraqi people will stop backing the insurgents if they see that things are improving.

It won't be as quick or as clean as that sounds, and I don't mean to make it sound like a cakewalk, but it is a chance for things to improve. That chance doesn't exist as long as the US is still there.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

It won't be as quick or as clean as that sounds, and I don't mean to make it sound like a cakewalk, but it is a chance for things to improve. That chance doesn't exist as long as the US is still there.

Yeah, I think you have the truth of it there Reverend. It's never going to get better as long as the invaders are there; the best chance is a major UN-backed international intervention, and its credibility requires the presence of troops from Iraq's Muslim neighbours with decent rules of engagement that allow them to shoot back when necessary.

But what I'm afraid is going to happen is that U.S.-sponsored elections will be held, nobody will believe the result is anything but a U.S. puppet, the U.S. will pull out (except for a large contingent of some crack force like the 82nd Airborne protecting the oil fields), leave the Iraqis nominally in charge of their own affairs before they're ready and able to do that, and the country will sink into civil war.
 
Reverend Blair
#34
I think you've got what is likely to happen right. I think that'll take about ten years though...Iraq has the second-largest oil reserve on earth. John Kerry wasn't about to walk away from it, and the mumbling from the Democrats after losing the election indicates they are about to take a giant step to the right in a bid to regain power in 2008.

The only hope for Iraq now is that the world community steps up the pressure on Bush, including Tony Blair getting the hell out of Iraq.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

You don't explain it to the insurgents, you explain it to the Iraqi people, offer insurgents an amnesty if they stop their attacks, then put in peace-keepers. Those peace keepers have to have a large contingent from Muslim nations and they have to be able to return fire as part of their mandate.

But do you think the insurgents will accept the amnesty they are granted? What if they don't? What if they do not only want no Americans, but no foreigners at all interfering in Iraq? And what if Muslim nations don't want to participate in a peace force? And what if the insurgents see them as an extension of former US presence?
 
Reverend Blair
#36
I think the insurgents would be under great pressure from their felow Iraqis to accept an amnesty. Most people want peace, they just don't want to be occupied.

Muslim nations would take part in the peace force if only to cover their own asses. If the US is in charge of the second-largest reserve of oil on earth it will severely limit the the power of a newly-revived OPEC.

There are a lot of ifs, Rick. The fact is that what is happening now isn't working. Remember when the US first invaded? The majority of the Iraqi population wasn't blatantly against them. Now they are. The press used to be able to go out and report things. Now they file stories from their hotel rooms.

If something isn't working...is making the situation demonstrably worse...then you try something else.
 
grimy
#37
I have some difficulty with portions of what you say:

Quote:

Most people want peace, they just don't want to be occupied.

Correct when you state most people want peace, however they don't want to be occupied or ruled by dictators either.

Quote:

If the US is in charge of the second-largest reserve of oil on earth it will severely limit the the power of a newly-revived OPEC.

So what, do you really see that as a bad thing?

Quote:

The majority of the Iraqi population wasn't blatantly against them. Now they are.

I'm curious as to where you obtained a stat such as that. Would you mind posting it?

Quote:

The press used to be able to go out and report things. Now they file stories from their hotel rooms.

Yet again a link supporting this which will no doubt dissavow the fact it's so much easier for them to stay in thier rooms and drink and be merry where it is so much safer for them. Yes I know its a muslim nation.

Quote:

If something isn't working...is making the situation demonstrably worse...then you try something else.

You and many others are so quick to condemn the US, before they've had a chance to get the situation settled.

It seems to me that most of what you write is pure subjective opinion as wishful thinking. Supporting links from reputable and objective sources would be appreciated.
 
Reverend Blair
#38
Quote:

Correct when you state most people want peace, however they don't want to be occupied or ruled by dictators either.

And would another US puppet be any less a dictator than Saddam, the last US dictator.

Quote:

So what, do you really see that as a bad thing?

Yes. It allows them to control their own resources and offer at least some resistance to imperialist pressures. That's why Hugo Chavez worked so hard to revive it.

You miss my point though...it isn't what I want, it's what they want acting as an incentive to get them involved.

Quote:

I'm curious as to where you obtained a stat such as that. Would you mind posting it?

CBC Newsworld, various papers and magazines, radio reports. There are other media than the internet.

Quote:

Yet again a link supporting this which will no doubt dissavow the fact it's so much easier for them to stay in thier rooms and drink and be merry where it is so much safer for them. Yes I know its a muslim nation.

Again it's been noted in several forms of media by a variety of sources.

Quote:

You and many others are so quick to condemn the US, before they've had a chance to get the situation settled.

They created the situation against the will of most of the world. They did so without the slightest plan on how to address a variety of problems they were warned were going to occur, instead telling us that the Iraqi people would be dancing in the streets at the sight of an invading army.

Quote:

It seems to me that most of what you write is pure subjective opinion as wishful thinking. Supporting links from reputable and objective sources would be appreciated.

It seems to me that you offer nothing constructive and are happy with a status quo that has left over 100,000 Iraqis...most of them civilians...dead. The United States has been caught breaking international law after law , yet you choose to ignore that.

Tell me Grimy, what would you do?
 
Rick van Opbergen
#39
Saddam was not a US dictator ... it was more like a Western dictator ... but that's hard to admit for a lot of governments. Point is that a lot of governments had diplomatic, and even stronger, bonds with Hussain. Actually, there are more dictators currently who are at the least, not punished by our governments ... regimes who violate human rights ... China ... Russia ... Venezuela ... Saudi Arabia ...
 
Reverend Blair
#40
It was a series of US-backed coups that brought Saddam to power and it was American backing that made him so powerful. Other nations dealt with him, but he was an American puppet until he became politically inconvenient by threatening the flow of oil, then he became a liability.

As for dictatorships...you can take Venezuela off that list. Hugo Chavez has been elected twice. When he was overthrown in a CIA backed coup the people rose up and had him re-instated.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#41
Quote:

The Government's human rights record continued to be poor in some areas; although there were improvements in some areas, serious problems remain. Human rights violations include extrajudicial killings of criminal suspects by the police and military, an increase in torture and abuse of detainees, failure to punish police and security officers guilty of abuse, arbitrary arrest and excessively lengthy detention, long delays in trials, illegal searches, and corruption and severe inefficiency in the judicial and law enforcement systems. Prison conditions remained harsh, and overcrowding and violence in the prisons were so severe as to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. In October the ANC declared a prison emergency and set up an interinstitutional commission to address conditions in the prisons. On July 1, the Organic Criminal Procedures Code (COPP) entered into force, replacing the secretive inquisitorial system with an open adversarial system. The authorities fired a number of judges for corruption. In February the Chavez administration reinstated the constitutional provisions of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and search without warrant, as well as freedom of movement, which had been suspended in some border areas since June 1994. Violence and discrimination against women, abuse of children, discrimination against the disabled, and inadequate protection of the rights of indigenous people continue to be problems. Child labor persisted, and there were reports of trafficking in children for forced labor. Killings due to vigilante justice increased.

source: www.nationbynation.com
 
Reverend Blair
#42
It's still improving though and Chavez is elected, not a dictator. Are there still problems? You bet there are. They have been slowly improving though, and every indication is that those improvements will speed up when attempts at military coups and meddling by the CIA cease.

Something else that can greatly improve the record is trade incentives based on human rights and improved working conditions. That will not happen as long as democracy is under siege in Venezuela though.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#43
OK, I agree that Chavez is not a real dictator ... though I do think he qualifies for "a regime which violates human rights" .... You said "improvements will speed up when attempts at military coups and meddling by the CIA cease". Can you back that claim?
 
Reverend Blair
#44
Many of the civil rights abuses are against people who have been caught trying to undermine the government. One example of that is some of the people who were arrested during the oil strike.

They sabotaged the oil fields, nearly causing an ecological disaster as well as almost destroying the fields. They took over ships...an act of piracy. Chavez was roundly accused of human rights abuses for arresting them, which is ridulous...anybody who did that anywhere would be arrested.

It is thought that they were tortured as well though, mostly to find out who their backers were. I'm not denying the torture took place, it very likely did, but if they hadn't been breaking the law they wouldn't have been arrested and if they hadn't been acting to destroy the oil fields they wouldn't have been suspected of colluding with the CIA etc., so they would have been less likely to be tortured.

Further to that, if there was the threat of automatic sanctions if Venezuela didn't improve its human rights record, it is far less likely that the torture would have taken place.
 

Similar Threads

0
Medieval graves found during dig
by Blackleaf | Oct 31st, 2006
0
0
Nuclear Storage on Indian Graves
by Vanni Fucci | Sep 12th, 2005