Violence Erupts at Protests by Iraqi Jobless

[adios]

Well maybe some Iraqis don't share Rummy's view of how things are going in Iraq:

Violence Erupts at Protests by Iraqi Jobless (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031001/ts_nm/iraq_dc_100)

I wonder if the Iraqi's will accept the US style of capitalism.

[Chris Alger]

It depends on whether you mean "US style" as practiced in the US, which means a diverse economy, labor unions, pensions, workforce and environmental regulation, a free media, a right to assemble, and a reasonably open political process to help ensure a tolerable distribution of wealth. Then there's "US style" by lesser developed clients, where a wealthy local elite siphons off part of the profits earned by giant coporations and uses them to buy guns to keep the oil and money flowing and taxes down. Twenty years from now, our disapointment that "free" Iraq looks more like the latter will no doubt be attributed by the Wall Street Journal to the failure of "Iraqis" to "accept" what was offered, reverting instead to their backward tribal ways.

[adios]

"It depends on whether you mean "US style" as practiced in the US, which means a diverse economy, labor unions, pensions, workforce and environmental regulation, a free media, a right to assemble, and a reasonably open political process to help ensure a tolerable distribution of wealth."

This is more inline with what I mean. However, I wonder if the Iraqis will actually accept a similar distribution of wealth that the US has. Ideally I'd like to see Iraqis own their fair share of the oil industry and I don't see that in the plans at this point but could be wrong. Dividends aren't enough unless they were guaranteed somehow. There seems to be two ways to go to me but perhaps there are more. An Iraqi oil industry that is set up as a private corporation where each Iraqi is given their fair share of ownership that could be bought and sold on open markets or a state run oil industry where the profits go to the government. If the Iraqi oil industry is privitized who gets the profits from these sales? I've thrown you a big fat slow one down the middle Chris /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

"Then there's "US style" by lesser developed clients, where a wealthy local elite siphons off part of the profits earned by giant coporations and uses them to buy guns to keep the oil and money flowing and taxes down."

I wouldn't call this US style but I'm sure you mean a US style of failure. Anyway I would agree that this represents a failure if it comes to pass.

"Twenty years from now, our disapointment that "free" Iraq looks more like the latter will no doubt be attributed by the Wall Street Journal to the failure of "Iraqis" to "accept" what was offered, reverting instead to their backward tribal ways."

No they would say that they were better off than with Hussein.

[Cyrus]

"...International officials have estimated the unemployment rate in Iraq may be running at around 50 percent."

Well, I would bet that much more violent demonstrations, if not outright rebellion, would erupt in any western country if half its working population was jobless.

And without any welfare support either.

[ACPlayer]

where a wealthy local elite siphons off part of the profits earned by giant coporations and uses them to buy guns to keep the oil and money flowing and taxes down

For a moment I thought you were giving the extreme left line about the US system. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

[Cyrus]

You still don't get it. The part about "Kurdish murder rate at Hussein's hands at 50%" was why the war was waged -- ostensibly.

And the war was won by the United States, a fact disputed by no one except Saddam's Press Secretary.

It is the peace that is being lost and the reason is precisely that part about "Unemployment at 50%". The U.S. has won the war but is losing the peace. This is the point.

[MMMMMM]

The peace will not be easy to win, especially with al-Qaeda flooding in over the borders. However as long as Bush remains in office I believe the USA will do what is necessary to win the peace. Look for a much better situation in Iraq a year from now.

[ACPlayer]

I predict less than 20 years.

I also suggest that the WSJ will be offering as another reason that the new Administration installed in 2004 (optimismm prevails in this Utopia)or 2008 is to blame.

[Cyrus]

...Now who's been utopic?

"The peace will not be easy to win, especially with al-Qaeda flooding in over the borders."

You are either deluding yourself or you have confused the two wars! There are remnants of irregulars which hold on to mountain positions such as the Afghan-Pakistan border. But there's no al-Qaeda in Iraq. There never was.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, send it to the White House.

"As long as Bush remains in office I believe the USA will do what is necessary to win the peace."

You sure you're not British? That stiff upper lip when faced with unmitigated disaster is uncanny.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wake up CALL]

"But there's no al-Qaeda in Iraq. There never was.

Another "bradlike" statement.

[Chris Alger]

I dont' know much about oil, but I'm beginning to think of it more as a political commodity than an economic one like gold or aluminum (or maybe more like gold a few hundred years ago). For one thing, it isn't priced like other commodities. The cost of Mid East oil production includes the cost of U.S. military operations in the theatre, at least beginning with the rapid deployment force started by Carter. The U.S. foots this bill, which acts as a subsidy to producers and consumers everywhere. On the other hand, if one controls access to enough oil, a power which doesn't nessarily require outright ownership, the strategic benefits are enormous. These costs and benefits aren't reflected by oil prices.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that ordinary Iraqis obtain a reasonable share of their country's wealth. In almost all cases of privitization, the public ends up giving away the farm. Certainly if ordinary Iraqis are given "shares" of the oil to be bought and sold, people that need charcoal and cooking oil will let them go for a song. I'm using the term "ordinary" Iraqis to distinguish from the Whtie House rhetoric about ensuring that "Iraqis" keep their oil and the wealth it produces. Since they haven't discussed how widely this ought to be distributed, I assume they mean the usual, local elite arrangement.

The most damning indictment to what the U.S. has in store for Iraq is that no one seems to be complaining about the problems of the Middle Easter "model" for distributing oil wealth. Tens of thousands of Saudi princes live like, well, princes, while the rest of the population goes without. That doesn't seem to be a problem with US planners or corporations and I can't think of a reason that it could become one as long as order is maintained.

[Cyrus]

"Another "bradlike" statement : There's no al-Qaeda in Iraq. There never was."

What is so hard to understand about it? I submit that bin Laden and al-Qaeda never had anything going in Iraq. Is this clear or do you need to read it a few more times?

No one has yet unearthed anything connecting al-Qaeda, a Muslim radical terrorist organisation, and the regime of Saddam, a nationalist, anti-religious, anti-Saudi regime.

...Like I said, you got evidence, send it to Dubya. He's desperate for some good news.

[MMMMMM]

Now YOU are nuts, Cyrus. The US just captured a bunch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Also al-Qaeda very recently called on members everywhere to go to Iraq and fight the US infidels; this was plastered all over their websites. I'm playing online now so I'm not going hunting for links but at least the capture was prominent mainstream news. I can't believe you somehow missed reading about the capture of a bunch of al-Qaeda in Iraq recently.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Now YOU are nuts, Cyrus. The US just captured a bunch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Also al-Qaeda very recently called on members everywhere to go to Iraq and fight the US infidels; this was plastered all over their websites. I'm playing online now so I'm not going hunting for links but at least the capture was prominent mainstream news. I can't believe you somehow missed reading about the capture of a bunch of al-Qaeda in Iraq recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM, Cyrus knows that was an untrue statement but like Brad he believes people will take him at his word and not ask for substantative evidence.

[brad]

'he believes people will take him at his word and not ask for substantative evidence. '

so what evidence is there of this al kida capture in iraq?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
'he believes people will take him at his word and not ask for substantative evidence. '

so what evidence is there of this al kida capture in iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you tell me brad, search for it.

[brad]

typical brad like post.

p.s. wakeup, i did post sources for you until i realized you were an a hole.
heh

[jokerswild]

This is more naive wishful thinking. Actually, it's been proven that the Kurds were gassed in 88 by the Iranians.

King George I set Saddam up in the first place.

There are foreign intelligence agencies that assert that Bin Laden STILL works for the CIA.

A lot of information is buried in the censored Saudi section of the 9-11 report.

MMMMMMMMM, a year from now Bush will sound more and more like Lyndon Johnon than he does now. Matter of fact, his speeches resonate like old copy today.

This is a quagmire.

[nicky g]

"typical brad like post."

LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif! Post of the week.

[Cyrus]

But I'm in a good mood today so you can relax that sphincter.

I searched once more the world wide web and came up with many items, none of which supports the notion that al-Qaeda was ever actively operating out of Iraq or that it was supported by Saddam's regime in any substantial way. I did find lots of items asserting that bin Laden's group enjoyed generous but covert support from officials in the Saudi Arabain, Pakistani and Afghani regimes -- but this is hardly news and was never contested, at least not by me.

NY Post, Sep.03 : 80 AL QAEDA VERMIN CAPTURED INSIDE IRAQ (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/5642.htm)

The recent capture of 80 "foreign fighters" is not indicative of any "al-Qaeda" influence within Iraq. It simply proves that the assistance promised to Iraq by millions of Arabs in street demonstrations came to about ...eighty fellows! That's all there is to it. The rest of the assertions made by "American intelligence" and promoted by the tabloids and the ultrapatriots in the States are, at best, suspect : the American spooks have absolutely no idea what bin Laden is currently doing but they know that bin Laden "appointed al Qaeda's military commander, Saif al-Adel, to be in charge of operations". How pathetic.

Here are some other links:

CBS : Top Al Qaeda Leader Nabbed IN ASIA (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/15/attack/main568434.shtml)
CNN: Al Qaeda-tied terrorist nabbed in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.terrorist.capture/)

LA Times, Jan.03: U.S. Claims Hussein-Al Qaeda Link [Claims by now abandoned] (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel30jan30,0,6143421.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus thank you very much for providing the links. Might I ask how you come to the conclusion that there has been no evidence of Al Qaeda in Iraq while at the same time posting a link that shows 80 Al Qaeda members were captured in Iraq?

[Cyrus]

"Might I ask how you come to the conclusion that there has been no evidence of Al Qaeda in Iraq while at the same time posting a link that shows 80 Al Qaeda members were captured in Iraq?"

I understand that al-Qaeda (=the network, in Arabic) is/was an organisation of Muslim fighters led by bin Laden. About twenty of them seem to have participated in the 9/11 attack. Most of the other Soldiers of God, fed and armed with bin Laden money, were simply guerillas -- first against the Soviets, then against the communist Afghanis, and finally against the Americans.

Now, some eighty non-Iraqi combattants are captured inside Iraq, at least according to American militart sources (we have no verification so far). Does that make them part of a terrorist organisation? Were they carrying Qaeda IDs? Come on. This is desperation! I cannot accept that every armed irregular that is captured away from his home country is a bona fide terrorist. A guerilla yes, a mercenary possibly, a terrorist not necessarily.

I submit that no terrorist activity was emanating out of Iraq towards the West; that Qaeda had no bases in Iraq nor was it getting any substantial support from Saddam; that whatever presence Qaeda had in Iraq, it didn't pose any threat at all to the West; that the mountainous (porous) area between Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan is impossible to police no matter how many sats and spooks you deploy; that among those that come and go as they please are Muslim guerillas who need no state help, eg by Saddam, to go about their business; etc etc.

The U.S. Army DID NOT conquer Iraq to uproot the Qaeda or to avenge the 9/11 attack. The goddamn U.S. President said so!.. Don't you guys ever believe the pols you vote for?

[Gamblor]

touche.

missed the scope of the argument.

[Wake up CALL]

Thanks for the clarification Cyrus. It is my understanding that what you said was that a terrorist is not a terrorist until they terrorize someone. Seems a little late to care by then....

[ACPlayer]

Before the invasion chances are pretty good that there were more terrorist types planning and plotting to attack the US, in the US than in Iraq. That has changed since we moved in.

There was a report about a base in Kurdish areas (our pals!) of Al Qaeda, but that area has been effectively off limits to Saddam for years now.

[Cyrus]

"It is my understanding that what you said was that a terrorist is not a terrorist until they terrorize someone. Seems a little late to care by then."

Absolutely, goddamn right. A murderer is not a murderer until and unless he/she commits a murder. A thief is not a thief until and unless etc. This is why there is a clear moral and legal distinction between intent and act. If you believe otherwise, I'm glad that you are not a judge. (You aren't, are you?)

You intentionally confuse precaution with punishment. You also intentionally throw out the window any sense of proper measure. It's one thing to take preventive action against a person who clearly (or even not so clearly) intends to do you harm and it's quite another thing to take action against his family, his neighborhood and his city! But as regards terrorism, yep, we are at a stage where your kind of mentality has prevailed, you'll be glad to know : Practically anyone can be called a terrorist nowdays by the powers that be and dealt with accordingly. Even a check-raiser.

"Thanks for the clarification."

Any time.

[MMMMMM]

If someone joins al-Qaeda and vows to take part in violent jihad against the West and makes concrete plans to do so, I would venture to say they are a terrorist even though they have not yet terrorized anyone. You may consider it a bit like conspiracy to commit murder instead of being an actual murderer yet. And by the way there are laws against conspiracy to commit murder and serious punishments for committing this crime even if it does not lead to actual murder. So yes, there is a line between intent and action to some degree, but in the case of terrorists chanting "Death To America" and making plans to do things like fly jetliners into the WTC I would say they are terrorists even before they hijacked those jetliners. I don't think the distinction betweem murderer and conspiracist fully aplies here either: to be a murderer one must commit murder but to be a terrorist all one must do is join a jihadist organization in full faith and intent. Once they make clear, through public proclamation or other means, that their intent is to "kill Americans wherever they can be found" I believe it is our duty to kill them first, and not to bring them to trial or to wait for their strike.

[Cyrus]

"If someone joins al-Qaeda and vows to take part in violent jihad against the West and makes concrete plans to do so, I would venture to say they are a terrorist even though they have not yet terrorized anyone."

You have a point but please note that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim, Marxist (the true ones!) and other guerillas active today around the world that have "vowed to kill Americans" and all that stuff. I'm not suggesting to adopt a pietous, forgiving attitude but I do recommend that the true extent of the danger be assessed. And it is not anywhere near bin Laden's, as dangers go.

Those armed irregulars fighting on the Afghan mountains or roaming the Khyber Pass will never be able to pull a true terrorist attack of note. Never! At most a grenade thrown at a passing truck. By all means, do exterminate them, when coming close to them, but do not call them terrorists! Calling them such names and exaggerating the danger they pose (which is in reality equal to the benign annoyance caused by the Taliban regime to the U.S. pre-9/11, remember that?) is false and bent on other means, eg Wolfowitz's.

The 9/11 hijackers and conspirators were all middle- to upper-class, fairly educated (some of them in the West, even) and mostly without combat experience, not even urban guerilla experience. Going after "the source of the problem" by going after the whole of Afghanistan and Iraq, is going after a shadow of a shadow. Wait and see.

(I have always found fascinating the fact that as an army or a country grows larger in power, it has more difficulty in adapting smaller-scale approaches rather than bigger-scale. In other words, a big power finds it more convenient and consistent to respond in a big way rather than in a small & flexible way, as would necessarily a small power. Dare I utter the dreaded V-word here, a solid historical example of the horrible results of such a mismatch?)

"In the case of terrorists chanting "Death To America" and making plans to do things like fly jetliners into the WTC I would say they are terrorists even before they hijacked those jetliners."

Once more : the truly, if not only, dangerous people are hiding under your radar screen, mole-like. They are not parading their mug around in street demonstrations, if they are over 20-25 years old. (They can be recruited from such demos or other "mild" activities when fairly young.) The United States is currently NOT going after them in any efficient manner! (Plus, it is losing the extremely important long-term-wise public relations battle.) "Chanting Death to America"?!? Hell, millions of people do that everyday, probably as we speak! Forget the reason why they chant that, those people are not in any real way dangerous. And they do not include terrorists!

Do not fool yourselves, you and the boondoggle domestic security apparatus.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

Agreed some of them aren't ever going to be able to harm us, and that some of the worst are hard to get at.

Perhaps Saudi Arabia needs regime change and complete occupation too. It increasingly seems that North Korea needs regime change as of yesterday. And so it seems we might need an army at least as large as during the Reagan years (Clinton slashed our manpower horrifically and now we need it, at least for Iraq and North Korea). Else, we need for the Socialist backboneless Europeans to take a stand against these sort of regimes instead of enjoying their long soft semi-slumber, made possible courtesy of Uncle Sam. If the USA had left Europe to fend for itself against the USSR all those years there either wouldn't be a Europe today or there wouldn't be so many Europeans born and bred to complacency.

[Cyrus]

"Some of [those terrorists] are hard to get at."

Note, once again, that I'm not suggesting we allow them to die peacefully of old age. I'm saying that the US is going about it the wrong way.

"Perhaps Saudi Arabia needs regime change and complete occupation too."

What's wrong with the current US-supported regime? The natives are kept busy with praying five times a day and the country is virtually occupied. And they play ball with crude oil prices.

"Clinton slashed our manpower horrifically and now we need it, at least for Iraq and North Korea."

Large military presence is good mainly for keeping (American) young people out of the dole. The US should really have a much more flexible arsenal of military options but it doesn't *.

"Else, we need for the Socialist backboneless Europeans to take a stand."

Well, the United States is viewed as downright socialist by Singapore! These things are relative.

But Europe is not a socialist continent at all. True, a large part of EU countries' GDP is generated by the public sector but that doesn't make them socialist. At most, somewhat inefficient. (Which is compensated by the smaller difference between higher and lower incomes.)

"If the USA had left Europe to fend for itself against the USSR all those years there either wouldn't be a Europe today or there wouldn't be so many Europeans born and bred to complacency."

Lots of things wrong with that sentence, judge! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Europe is not complacent. European countries have engaged in a tremendous number of military actions away from the continent : Belgium all over Congo; France all over Africa; the UK in Falklands, Cyprus, and N. Ireland; etc etc.

But is that something to be proud of ?

Then there's the question of the Soviet threat, post-WWII. This has always been wildly exaggerated. The USSR never intended, as also its archives have revealed, to invade Western Europe. It didn't even want European communist parties to grow so strong as to assume/share power! (Check the history of relations between USSR and the Italian CP.)

A violent communist take-over in W. Europe was only possible immediately after WWII, when the Soviets were still among "the good guys", Europeans were generally poor and social conditions very unstable. As a rule, there cannot be a socialist revolution when you have prosperity and peace. (The October 1917 Revolution succeeded --and the German 1920 Revolution almost succeeded-- because the people were enraged with the War's gigantic bloodshed. You remember that the equally strong 1905 Russian Revolution failed miserably.)

--Cyrus

* : Perhaps it's by now impossible for the US to behave as flexibly and as efficiently as Israel, for example.

[Chris Alger]

Actually the Iraqi Kurds are at greater risk now, just as more Kurds have been killed by regimes supported by the U.S., including Iraq during it's Anfal than have been killed in the years when Saddam was "in the box."[1] The Boston Globe reported that some 2,000-3,000 Kurdish villages were razed in Turkey during the Clinton years, a far greater atrocity than anything Saddam would have been capable of had he stayed in power.

Now The Economist reports that Kurds are losing their autonomy and having to take orders from the U.S. dictatorship in Baghdad. Should they resist, they will undoubtedly meet the same treatment we have funded and facilitated so often in the past, probably in the form of cross-border raids by Turkey.

___________
[1] For example, for at least two years prior to Anfal, the US was shipping providing intelligence and biological agents to Iraq and helped block a Security Council resolution condmening Iraq's use of poison gas. After Anfal US support continued right up until the Kuwait invasion. Two months after Anfal began, the Commerce Dept. approved the shipment of chemicals to Iraq for making mustard gas. See US support for Iraq chronology (http://www.rehberg.net/arming-iraq.html)