Which explains why the result favoured the Shia religious groupings (some fairly pro-Iran) over the more secular parties?!? I'll still take the election results as a better indication of Iraqi opinion than a reported asking a few random people on the street, let alone somehow take the Sunni extremists as representative of a county in which they are just one minority with a similar share of the population as the Kurds, whose views on the coalition forces are completely ignored in the western media. Yes Iraq's a mess and the post-invasion planning was moronic, but I can't see how an immediate withdrawal against the wishes of the government leaving the country under equipped to deal with an insurgency with the aim of creating a regional sectarian conflict can be good for the country or the struggle against Al-Queda (et al.) globally.
Don't read too much into that. The U.S. government supported the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan once.
I'd say at that time they'd (foolishly) lost interest in Afganistan, but yes Pakistan, who would generally count as a US ally supported them and the US acquiesced in that at the time. However I don't see exactly how this means the world should ignore the elections and only pay attention to those calling for a withdrawal. We can take an ivory tower approach, pointing out mistakes in the past or inconsitancies but unless you propose an alternative, I don't see the value. As I remember the Frech alternative once the US pressed for military action was sanctions, bur months before they were trying to get them lifted and sign oil deals with Saddam. Or 'No War for Oil' rather than 'No war for Oil'.
No, they actually supported them much more actively than that. First they supported the likes of Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) in kicking out the Ruskies with the Mujahedin; then they actively encouraged the Taliban seizing control because it was perceived that they would bring stability to the country and hence protect the oil/gas lines that run through the area. This was in full acknowledgement that the Taliban was a fundamentalist regime. I am not suggesting that. However I am not suggesting the extreme opposite either-- to assume that all Iraqis are happy with the government that was voted into office. How often do we complain in the West that our democratic options are frequently limited to voting for the best of a bad bunch, the devil you know rather than the devil you don't, etc. Often our governments in office are a mediocre compromise, and even when they are not, they can fall out of favour... The people in Iraq voted because really, what other option do they have (short of strapping on a bomb)? They were promised change. They were promised that now the evil dictator was gone, things would get better. Three years down, they have not --far from it. But unless you are an unreasonable person inclined to violence, you do the only thing you can --you vote. Like you join the police or try to restore the country in other ways at the risk of getting killed. But that does not mean they are happy about it. It is our arrogance to think that just because we enabled the Iraqis to vote, that all their problems should be over now. "So what if you haven't got water and electricity, you can't walk the streets without getting blown up, and you have no food an medicine? You can vote now, can't you? So buck up" . War is bullsh*t. Sanctions are bullsh*t. What we should have done, we should have done before Saddam came into power. But no point in going over past mistakes, right? Never mind that "Those who forget the past, are forced to repeat it" --that's just intellectual ivory-tower ranting. So let's repeat the same mistakes instead. Because, hey, what alternatives do we have? There is always an alternative to screwing up, even if it is to do nothing. Or: - We could stop playing the terrorists' game and withdraw. Another mess to just blow off and leave a country in, but at least we won't make things worse. - Instead of shipping in $90 Billion in cash, FFS, making it virtually untrackable and unmanageable in that chaos (as a result, most of it has unaccountably "disappeared"), or farming out contracts to U.S. companies, we could have given contracts to Iraqi companies. Not "Food for Oil", but "Money for Rebuilding Your Own Country". - We could have given Iraq favoured trading status with regards to agricultural and technological goods, to get their food production and industry going (and allow them to export the main profitable item: value-added goods), rather than to squeeze every last drop of oil out of it, to hell with a balanced and diversified economy. Let's pretend we're not really after the oil after all. - Iraqis could vote for a proportionally representative government including Shia, Suni, Kurds and what-have-you, without Western funding of this-group-but-not-that-one or other interference. In fact, they can choose whatever form of government they want. How's that for alternatives?
There aren't actually any oil pipelines in Afghanistan afaik. Certainly we supported the Mujahedin which included much of what became Al-Queda. Yep doesn't look great with hindsight, but at the time the USSR was an issue and one that needed to be opposed by the free world. They voted, they had plenty of parties to vote for with different shades of opinion, none imposed by the US (sure the did try initially with Chalbi, but that didn't go to their plan either. And a hell of a lot of them voted despite the risks and threats from the terrorists. Why shouldn't we give their vote any respect? Or do we just read the Guardian editorial to tell us what's best for them? Again there's "should have" and "could have" in your suggestions. Or a pull out where "we won't make things worse", no that will be down to the sectarians or either side to do that - we'll just head home and "blame the natives". The relevant test is wether the pull out will make things better or worse, not who gets the finger pointed at them. As for your new "special" elections, I'm not sure how many time they'll have to vote until some people are happy. Or shall we just decide for them in case they're unable to make up their own minds with the US government providing the funds?
In 1998 there was very much going to be. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline would have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. So we create a new "issue" in the process of dealing with an old "issue". Moreover we do not appear to learn from that pattern. Ah, well, the NHS runs along similar lines... Like I said: Er, you asked for alternatives; I gave some. Correct grammar inevitably imposes the words "should" and "could" on propositional sentences... My point is that we don't interfere, although it is, admittedly, a bit late for that... OK, it's a bit like this analogy. Some dude wants to put watercooling in his PC. He decides to ignore all advice and doesn't use proper tube clamps and does not leak test it. Everybody goes: "Dude, you'll have a leak and fry your PC". He proceeds anyway and he promptly fries his PC completely. "Oh, crap", he says, "What do I do now to fix my PC?" Answer: "You can't mate. It's totally fried. You should have listened and used clamps and leak tested it." He goes: "We could talk all day about what I could or should have done. That's in the past. I had my reasons at the time. What do I do to fix my PC now?" And he won't be told that because of his past actions, the thing is totally beyond repair now. That's the situation with Iraq and Afghanistan. We set out on a course of actions which was a bad course to take, and plenty of people said so. But once the first step is taken, the resulting consequences commit you to another bad step, and another... and another. And with each step you are a bit deeper in crap, and it is harder to change course or back out. At some point, you realise you are about to get hopelessly stuck. You want to change course, you want alternatives, but you left those behind many steps ago. Your actions funneled you to your current position with no room for manoeuver left except one last step: "check mate". Although some people will (validly) argue that going back over the past is unproductive, and that we have to deal with what is here, now, one can equally (validly) argue that a refusal to look at past mistakes is really just a way to avoid taking responsibility for them (particularly given that people had warned what would happen). We can talk about what to do next, as long as we don't talk about what was done so far, so nobody has to take responsibility for doing it. And if we don't look backwards we don't have to acknowledge how we painted ourselves into a corner. We just create new "issues" in dealing with old "issues", that in dealing with, result in newer "issues" still.
Update: Al-Qaeda site names Zarqawi’s successor. I guess that didn't take long, then. Perhaps more organised than we thought...
Considering that the US consumes quite a bit of oil, and that oil is vital to the economy, than what is wrong with helping to assure a supply of oil? Assume Saddam were to decide to cut off oil from the US- he would most likely do such an attack for dislike of the US. It would most likely be an indirect attack. Is there a "war for oil", or a War to protect not only the economy of the US but every other country that relies on oil from Iraq? What other motives are there? There was suspition of WMDs. There were no WMDs found- however I have not heard any explanation for the convoys that fled to Iran, and if I'm not mistaken there have been facilities for production of WMDs found. Us "rigging" the election? Well, it is true that no one will be entierly happy with whoever is elected- but I think in general people will be happy to know that they no longer have a dictator. What about the funding that the US did? What level of funding did the other candidates have? Did Al-Qaeda try to put someone in the elections? Media reported that officals in Iraq along with officals in the US worked togother to form the current Iraqi government- which is a lot better than running from the country and leaving them to sort out the mess on their own. Assuming that Iraqi officals worked with the US to create a government, I think there is a good chance the same Iraqi officials most likely knew if the US was attempting to rig the elections. Us supporting Mujahideen - It's true that the US, China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia all supported various mujahideen back when the mujahideen were fighting the Russian invasion. It so happens that one of these mujahideen turned into the Taliban with Osama Bin Laden's financial support/leadership. However, I have not found any evidence that the US ever directly supported the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden. What I can find, is evidence that Pakistan supported the Taliban, and Pakistan had been financially supported by the US. That is close, but entierly different than the US supporting the Taliban. As much as it sucks to know the Taliban named a successor, I suppose it was not too hard to predict that would happen. I cant wait to see the reaction. L J
Well, when you put it like that, nothing. But when it turns out that in order to attempt to assure that supply hundreds of thousands of civillians die(not yet, only about 100K so far according the lancet, but rising every day), it doesn't seem so rosy. Saddam would never have stopped exporting oil though, he wanted power and his power came from that oil, basicly. That's just ridiculous! Are you seriously suggesting that the Iranian and Iraqi governments, one a military dictatorship the orther a fundamentalist Islamic republic(who hate secular governments), with a history of serious war against each other, who both hated each other more then anything, would help each other out? Gimme a break! Oh and you wanna know who was out there running the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? You guessed it, it's our right honourable friend Mr. Bin Ladin. They were his militia. He was there, the CIA trained him in Guerilla warfare, which worked out nicely. You talking about Iraq? I think you mean Al-Qaeda, for gods sake man, if you're going to rationalise a war that lead to so far 100 thousand civilians dying in it, in the name of securing oil rights, at least get your facts right!
Who is killing most of those civillians? How many civillian casualties are from IEDs? Civillian casualties suck, but they are pretty hard to avoid. When you write it up that way, it looks as if your trying to imply the US Army is just a bunch of rednecks enjoying hunting down civillians. I dislike the whole "no war for oil" attitude if oil is necessary. Then the whole idea of a war for oil is competely pointless. The only way that a war for oil would benifit the US is if an American flag were to be flown over Iraq- the current Iraqi government is going to need to make money off of oil too. First off, during the 70's and 80's all kinds of people helped Iraq develop nasty weapons. France gave 'em a reactor which Israel had to take out for fear of their life. France, Italy, the UK, and even the US provided Saddam with all kinds of nasty stuff back then. Germany helped build facilities for producing chemical weapons. There is no denying Saddam had WMDs at one time, and had the capability to produce them again. It's a good thing no-one taught him how to make Nukes. . . Until someone can tell me what was in those convoys, my best guess is WMDs. Your argument is that Iraq and Iran disliked each other, so there should have been no convoys no matter what? But the convoys did leave Iraq. It sure wasn't military troops- Saddam tried to convince his military to stick around for the fight. . . Food and supplies? Why would Saddam send those to a country he hates? Iraq and Iran may hate each other, but lately it seems they both dislike the US. Iran did not offer any support of the invasion. Saddam could already see the end was near- thats why he went into hiding. In my opinion, Saddam was about to loose his government, and he needed to get some WMDs out of his country. Em, I already told you who was running the mujahideen. So far, I have seen no evidence that the US trained Bin Ladin. I have seen evidence that China, Packistan, Saudia Arabia and even the US supported various factions of the Mujahideen when the Mujahideen was fighting Russia. Everything thing I have found so far says after the fight with Russia was over, small groups of the Mujahideen were fighting amongst each other, and Osama Bin Laden (a former supporter) joined the Mujahideen. Damn, all the talk about Taliban confused me for a second. That doesn't necessairly discredit my whole post ya know. L J
Really I must find out what grammar is some day! Alternatively you might assume I was pointing out that the alternatives offered are alternative actions that could/should have been taken in the past. No policy is advocated from this point forward except to pull out (without even any claim that it will make things better for the country), or to hold more "different" elections, as you don't accept the results of their last two elections.
Alternatively, you could have expressed yourself clearer: emphasise "past" rather than "could/should". Look, in my previous posts I have already explained why I am looking at things that should/could have done in the past, and why I perceive our options to be considerably more limited now. I have also explained my point of view regarding the elections (twice). Yet you keep insisting that I "don't accept" the results of their last two elections. On that issue, please just read my previous posts again.
OK, just I think there's more value in looking at the siutation at present rather than hyotheticals. And given that you are suggesting that they need to hold another set of elections now and that you don't accept that the fact the majority of voters favoured parties that do not wish the coalition to withraw should be taken as a reason to stay, clearly you aren't putting much value in opinions expressed bythe Iraqi electorate so far. Do they have to keep voting until they elect a government that asks the Americans to leave? Or could it just be that whatever their opinions on the invasion they think it would be disasterous the coalition to pull out at this point.
Depends. If you throw countries into chaos, go over the corpses of civilians, exploit economies into ruin, then there might be an ethical problem. I really do not have the time or energy to go into this again... I could talk about conflict investment, trade embargos, neo-colonialism, foreign politics etc. But your above statement seems to suggest to me that I would have a lot of explaining to do to help you catch up on the subject. Doesn't matter. It is not your oil. it doesn't belong to you. It is Iraq's oil. You are not automatically entitled to it. If you want to buy something, you'll have to find someone prepared to sell it to you, and pay the price he wants for it --or if he doesn't want to sell it to you, just find another seller or learn to do without. That's how it works in civilised society. You can't strongarm, threaten or coerce your neighbour into selling his car to you just because you want to maintain your mobility. But might makes right (or rather, might makes yours), doesn't it? Perhaps you have lived too long in a culture where people just expect to get whatever they want, now. Perhaps you have a sense of overentitlement. But life is not like that; it doesn't owe you anything. It was here first. I have not seen any proof of convoys fleeing to Iran (most unlike Saddam to ship his weapons to arch enemy no. 1 in any case). They remain as elusive as those WMD. But if they did exist, what would be in them is not WMD. Think about it for a second (you'd be the first). It would be a bit pointless if you are about to be deposed and lose your country to ship out your weapons. You would use them and go out with a bang. Unless you are preparing to run... in that case you'd do like any sensible dictator about to be deposed: you ship out all your wealth, your assets, your money. You try to hide and safeguard your retirement fund, so to speak. That is what would have been in those convoys. WMD? The US Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only two of those countries sit atop the second and fifth largest oil reserves in the world respectively: Iraq and Iran. More precisely: Country by rank and 2001 proved Oil reserves (in billion barrels): 1 Saudi Arabia 261.7 2 Iraq 112.5 3 United Arab Emirates 97.8 4 Kuwait 96.5 5 Iran 89.7 We did Iraq. Guess which one the U.S. is shooting for now? (added clue: oil producer no. 1, 3 and 4 are already best friends with the U.S.). Every politician is prepared to sleep with strange bed partners (so to speak) to get elected, and every election is "rigged" to the extent that people will try to influence the process to their benefit. Happens here (think of large company donations or "loans" to certain parties), happened there. And everybody involved knows. Although election was better than no election, I remain in my opinion that it is blind arrogance on our part to assume that the Iraqi people's problems are now over just because we brought them the vote. Voting means little if you are starving, being blown up or have no medical care. This is not where the problems end. This is where they begin. In 1988, with U.S. knowledge, Osama Bin Laden created Al Qaeda. Despite the ClA's denials, military analysts and specialists on the weapons trade say it was inevitable that the military training in guerrilla tactics and the vast reservoir of money and arms that the CIA provided in Afghanistan would have ended up helping Osama Bin Laden and his forces during the 1980s. The trial of the defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya disclosed that the CIA shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden's operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this. The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary programme, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia stated that the creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA". When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." Another U.S. diplomat said in 1997: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that". (italics added) It more than sucks --people were confident that this would be a "major blow" and throw terrorists into chaos. As it is, it has barely caused a ripple. Succession was smooth and immediate. So much for underestimating the enemy.
Situation at present? Check Mate. Still not getting it. I am NOT proposing yet another election. I was proposing that they should have done it differently, but it's too late for that now. I am sure that the majority of people would like us to stick around now, if only to clean up the mess we've created. But I don't think it is a mess that can be cleaned up. I perceive no improvement if we stay. To be honest, I perceive little improvement if we go. We're stuck in check mate. Dead horse. Fried PC. Whatever analogy for something that is beyond saving, repair, resurrection or redemption. Iraq is the new Beirut.
I think you'll also find if you look, that OBL took part in a battle in Jaji, with his own Mujahadin. Since bush has come to power oil price per barrel have practically trippled. Where does bush come from again? Oh yeah, thats right, oil families! Intrestingly, if the price of oil goes above $100 a barrel, which thanks to Mr. Bush it's sure to, it becomes worthwhile for US oil companies to open up US Shale oil reserves, all 800 Gigatonnes of them. The whole thing works out so perfectly. Raise the oil price several fold, keep it there for a few years, then make it worthwhile for the US oil reserves to be used at an even higher price. Indeed, he had the weaponry we sold him. Mostly Russia, but yes, Europe(one of their big industries, thankfully they aren't hypocrits), the UK, and the US also. I seriously doubt he had the capability to resume production within a few months though. Happy to read links you provide, but as is, frankly I just don't believe it. As for Saddam having WMD, almost all security analysts agree that if Saddam had the capability to use WMD, he would have used WMD. If you think a pending invasion of Iraq would be enough to make Iraqi's and Iranians like each other, at civilian or governmental level, you really need to go read how nasty that war was.
Oh I thought you meant meant: Which if it didn't meant "they should have another election" meant And your other suggestion was:
Can't help but feel you're over-egging the pudding just a little bit here - Bin Laden was hardly 'running the Mujahadeen', he was involved for sure but there were many different factions within the Mujahadeen, not all of whom went on to help form the Taliban or turn against the west with terrorist attacks. The funding of Bin Laden and his associates by the CIA is well worth pointing out, but its almost as though you're implying that the mujahadeen and Al Qaeda were one and the same movement in a way thats slightly more black and white than is quite the case! Look at the people who led the various groups in the 'Northern Alliance' (or 'United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan' as they called themselves, funny how that name never made it into western media discourse very much I think you'll agree ), who along with the US, overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001 and were opposed to Al Qaeda's presence. All former Mujahadeen! And, to add further intrigue, some of the factions were supported by Iran AND the United States in 2001. Whether these guys are much 'better people' than the Taliban, and whether they will turn out to have been good allies for us in the longer term, I'm not so sure, sadly (General Dostum for one has already started 'playing up' time and time again). But to suggest that the US support for the Mujahadeen equates to US support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in quite as a clear and direct fashion as you appear to have done, IMHO ignores the level to which the Mujahadeen movement was so riven with disagreements that they all ended up fighting each other, and were never that unified in when fighting the Soviets. The Mujahadeen was never a unitary actor - it did not morph as a whole into Al Qaeda, which appears to be the suggestion. Indeed, many former Mujahadeen fighters fought for years against the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) presence in Afghanistan, and continue to do so.
Maybe so Will, but that doesn't get away from the fact that the men who followed OBL, did morph into Al Queda. Look at my Robin Cook quote up above if you like. We started calling them Al Queda, before that, they were mujahadin. The same ones we supported in Afghanistan, and the same ones the CIA trained.
