AP (via Raw Story):
Iraq and China are close to re-signing a $1.2 billion oil deal that was called off after the 2003 U.S. invasion, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official said Thursday.
Saddam Hussein's government signed a deal with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. to develop the billion-barrel al-Ahdab oil field, despite U.N. sanctions that barred direct dealings with Iraq's oil industry.
Beijing was waiting for the sanctions to end when the U.S. invasion overthrew Saddam. The two countries restarted talks in October 2006.
"We are expecting that the next round of discussions, due to be held in April, will finish the negotiations," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release information.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said it had no information about the talks.
Mmmmmm hmmmmmm.
Officials with CNPC and China's Commerce Ministry could not be reached for comment.
Really?
Meanwhile, in another part of town...
On Wednesday, another oil official said that Iraq's Cabinet has given the nod to the Oil Ministry to sign agreements with international oil companies to help increase the nation's crude output.
The two-year deals, known as technical support agreements, or TSAs, are designed to develop five producing fields that would add 500,000 barrels per day to the country's 2.4 million barrels per day output.
"But that's not enough! That sixth field in Wasit should have been ours as well!!!"
Sorry, chums.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Almost Forgotten
For all practical purposes, the event that has by all reasonable reaches shaped every single development worldwide for the past 90 years finds itself with fewer and fewer people that have an active memory of participating in it, albeit tangentially:
AP:
Harry Richard Landis, who enlisted in the Army in 1918 and was one of only two known surviving U.S. veterans of World War I, has died. He was 108.
Landis trained as a U.S. Army recruit for 60 days at the end of the war and never went overseas. But the VA counts him among the 4.7 million men and woman who served during the Great War.
One has to reflect on the apparent fact that we as a race of beings haven't really learned much from past horrors that we have inflicted on each other when the last vestiges of a generation that endured them are passing away like a wisp of smoke and all we can do is mention them in passing while focusing on persecuting similar and even greater horrors on the latest fellow members of the human race that happen to be in the way of "progress":
Seattle Times:
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military faced complaints Tuesday from its Sunni allies over claims that more civilians had been killed by American forces — amplifying tensions as the Pentagon tries to calm anger over an airstrike last week that claimed innocent lives.
The latest deaths occurred Tuesday when U.S. soldiers — acting on tips — stormed a squat mud-brick house in the village of Adwar, 10 miles south of Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. The predominantly Sunni area is home to many former members of Saddam's regime, and has been the frequent site of American raids.
The U.S. military said a gunbattle broke out after the troops came under small-arms fire by two suspected terrorists. It acknowledged a woman was killed and a child was wounded, but said it was not clear who shot them.
Two other men were killed and the military described them as insurgents.
But Iraqi police, relatives and neighbors said a couple and their 19-year-old son were shot to death in their beds. Iraqi police also said two girls were wounded and one later died.
How does that catchy phrase go about history and those who ignore it being doomed to a predetermined path of repetition?
AP:
Harry Richard Landis, who enlisted in the Army in 1918 and was one of only two known surviving U.S. veterans of World War I, has died. He was 108.
Landis trained as a U.S. Army recruit for 60 days at the end of the war and never went overseas. But the VA counts him among the 4.7 million men and woman who served during the Great War.
One has to reflect on the apparent fact that we as a race of beings haven't really learned much from past horrors that we have inflicted on each other when the last vestiges of a generation that endured them are passing away like a wisp of smoke and all we can do is mention them in passing while focusing on persecuting similar and even greater horrors on the latest fellow members of the human race that happen to be in the way of "progress":
Seattle Times:
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military faced complaints Tuesday from its Sunni allies over claims that more civilians had been killed by American forces — amplifying tensions as the Pentagon tries to calm anger over an airstrike last week that claimed innocent lives.
The latest deaths occurred Tuesday when U.S. soldiers — acting on tips — stormed a squat mud-brick house in the village of Adwar, 10 miles south of Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. The predominantly Sunni area is home to many former members of Saddam's regime, and has been the frequent site of American raids.
The U.S. military said a gunbattle broke out after the troops came under small-arms fire by two suspected terrorists. It acknowledged a woman was killed and a child was wounded, but said it was not clear who shot them.
Two other men were killed and the military described them as insurgents.
But Iraqi police, relatives and neighbors said a couple and their 19-year-old son were shot to death in their beds. Iraqi police also said two girls were wounded and one later died.
How does that catchy phrase go about history and those who ignore it being doomed to a predetermined path of repetition?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
It's never worked and never will...
The 'Ultimate Horror' of strategic bombing was realized in Spain during the Spanish Civil War and Poland at the outset of World War II. "Strategic" is a term that has never really applied since the unfortunate law of gravity rules above anything else and the bomb will fall where they will.
It's never worked in the manner in which it was designed to (except when it was designed to do what it does naturally--terrorize and decimate the entire population of its target area) ever since, be it in Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Serbia, and countless other places, including the current targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and potential targets in Iran and Pakistan.
Chris Floyd over at Salon:
Monday, the Pentagon acknowledged a long-unspoken truth: that the bombardment of civilian neighborhoods in Iraq is an integral part of the vaunted "counterinsurgency" doctrine of Gen. David Petraeus. The number of airstrikes in the conquered land has risen fivefold since George W. Bush escalated the war in January, as USA Today reports:
"Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics ... In Iraq, the temporary increase of 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by President Bush in January has led to the increase in bombing missions. The U.S. command has moved forces off large bases and into neighborhoods and has launched several large offensives aimed at al-Qaeda ... 'You end up having that many more opportunities for close air support,' said Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Doha, Qatar."
"'This could have been done through the infantry,' said Ibrahim al-Khamas, a Samarra city council member. 'But the American Army prefers the easiest solution, which is the air bombardment ... This airstrike was excessive, as usual, which led to the fall of civilians. People here are now carrying great hatred against the Americans after the raid. This airstrike turned their Eid to grief' ...
It's never worked in the manner in which it was designed to (except when it was designed to do what it does naturally--terrorize and decimate the entire population of its target area) ever since, be it in Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Serbia, and countless other places, including the current targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and potential targets in Iran and Pakistan.
Chris Floyd over at Salon:
Monday, the Pentagon acknowledged a long-unspoken truth: that the bombardment of civilian neighborhoods in Iraq is an integral part of the vaunted "counterinsurgency" doctrine of Gen. David Petraeus. The number of airstrikes in the conquered land has risen fivefold since George W. Bush escalated the war in January, as USA Today reports:
"Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics ... In Iraq, the temporary increase of 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by President Bush in January has led to the increase in bombing missions. The U.S. command has moved forces off large bases and into neighborhoods and has launched several large offensives aimed at al-Qaeda ... 'You end up having that many more opportunities for close air support,' said Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Doha, Qatar."
"'This could have been done through the infantry,' said Ibrahim al-Khamas, a Samarra city council member. 'But the American Army prefers the easiest solution, which is the air bombardment ... This airstrike was excessive, as usual, which led to the fall of civilians. People here are now carrying great hatred against the Americans after the raid. This airstrike turned their Eid to grief' ...
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The New Tin Soldiers
NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.
CBS:
BAGHDAD, Oct. 12, 2007
The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene after Blackwater USA guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad intersection on Sept. 16, found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any weapons at the guards, the Washington Post reported Friday.
A report compiled by the soldiers concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and called the incident a "criminal event," the Post reports.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers arrived at the scene 20 to 25 minutes after the shootings ended. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN.
Not withstanding my previous post about this happening when the Chicago Cubs make it to and win the World Series (not happening this year), if and when this happens the primary concerns that every freedom valuing American citizen should keep in mind are a: where are they going to go when they leave (they're going to be coming back here to the States to begin with) and b: what will they be doing there (your guess is as good as mine, but if the indications based on the duties secured by Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina flushed out the majority of the more disadvantaged portion of the city's population (keeping them out of the public housing units that they still are rightfully entitled to) are anything to go by it can't be anything in the best interests of the average American).
The current administration and the support structure that keeps it in power know that the next election is a potential pivotal event. The results of said election must go in a certain direction in order for the benefactors of the current administration's policies (minimal to nonexistent tax rates for their main source of income, foreign policies that maximize profit for certain industries that they are deeply invested in (military-industrial, fossil fuel development, distribution and sale). In order for this to be achieved, the masses must remain pacified by (relatively) stable economic conditions and a seemingly calm domestic state of affairs, which means minimal public dissent and protest and NO BAD NEWS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT HOW WE ARE IN DANGER FROM THREATS FROM TERRORISTS WHO ARE EVERYWHERE.
Pacifying and marginalizing civil dissent that goes beyond an acceptable level of intensity (read: when it starts to attract the attention of enough people to be a concern to the ruling class) usually falls to a police or military organization. But, if the local and state police are so overworked and underequipped to deal with it then a national force is usually called upon to quell the uprising, unless, the national force normally called upon to do so has already been called upon to fight in an overseas conflict and has been compromised to the point of near decimation. Then what do you do to quell the potentially polarizing protests of the administration and its policies? Why, you contract a private, corporate security force that is not answerable to any laws in the country that they're working in, even if it happens to be the country that they are indigenous to!
Peaceful Protest: What? A group of more than ten people are gathered to protest the administration's foreign policies?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(SHOOT TO KILL!!!)
General Election: What? You've come to vote and you're not going to choose the ruling party on your ballot?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!)
All I can say is that I'm glad I live in Texas, because I think they'll think twice before coming down here and doing any sort of messing with anything or anyone given the fact that everyone down here owns at least one firearm. I'm just as nonviolent as the next person and am in total agreement with Arthur and Chris in their view of physical violence as a non option in that it always sends the wrong message and sets the wrong precident, BUT, it seems to be the only language that these folks understand AND I'm not a big fan of rolling over for the trigger happy muscle of an illegitimate administration of outlaws who have no regard for the inherent rights of human beings, be they citizens of the U. S. or any other country in the world.
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
--Neil Young
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.
CBS:
BAGHDAD, Oct. 12, 2007
The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene after Blackwater USA guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad intersection on Sept. 16, found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any weapons at the guards, the Washington Post reported Friday.
A report compiled by the soldiers concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and called the incident a "criminal event," the Post reports.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers arrived at the scene 20 to 25 minutes after the shootings ended. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN.
Not withstanding my previous post about this happening when the Chicago Cubs make it to and win the World Series (not happening this year), if and when this happens the primary concerns that every freedom valuing American citizen should keep in mind are a: where are they going to go when they leave (they're going to be coming back here to the States to begin with) and b: what will they be doing there (your guess is as good as mine, but if the indications based on the duties secured by Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina flushed out the majority of the more disadvantaged portion of the city's population (keeping them out of the public housing units that they still are rightfully entitled to) are anything to go by it can't be anything in the best interests of the average American).
The current administration and the support structure that keeps it in power know that the next election is a potential pivotal event. The results of said election must go in a certain direction in order for the benefactors of the current administration's policies (minimal to nonexistent tax rates for their main source of income, foreign policies that maximize profit for certain industries that they are deeply invested in (military-industrial, fossil fuel development, distribution and sale). In order for this to be achieved, the masses must remain pacified by (relatively) stable economic conditions and a seemingly calm domestic state of affairs, which means minimal public dissent and protest and NO BAD NEWS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT HOW WE ARE IN DANGER FROM THREATS FROM TERRORISTS WHO ARE EVERYWHERE.
Pacifying and marginalizing civil dissent that goes beyond an acceptable level of intensity (read: when it starts to attract the attention of enough people to be a concern to the ruling class) usually falls to a police or military organization. But, if the local and state police are so overworked and underequipped to deal with it then a national force is usually called upon to quell the uprising, unless, the national force normally called upon to do so has already been called upon to fight in an overseas conflict and has been compromised to the point of near decimation. Then what do you do to quell the potentially polarizing protests of the administration and its policies? Why, you contract a private, corporate security force that is not answerable to any laws in the country that they're working in, even if it happens to be the country that they are indigenous to!
Peaceful Protest: What? A group of more than ten people are gathered to protest the administration's foreign policies?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(SHOOT TO KILL!!!)
General Election: What? You've come to vote and you're not going to choose the ruling party on your ballot?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!)
All I can say is that I'm glad I live in Texas, because I think they'll think twice before coming down here and doing any sort of messing with anything or anyone given the fact that everyone down here owns at least one firearm. I'm just as nonviolent as the next person and am in total agreement with Arthur and Chris in their view of physical violence as a non option in that it always sends the wrong message and sets the wrong precident, BUT, it seems to be the only language that these folks understand AND I'm not a big fan of rolling over for the trigger happy muscle of an illegitimate administration of outlaws who have no regard for the inherent rights of human beings, be they citizens of the U. S. or any other country in the world.
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
--Neil Young
Friday, October 5, 2007
This may actually happen...
If the Chicago Cubs win the World Series:
Guardian UK:
BAGHDAD (AP) - The official Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater shooting has been submitted to the government and recommends the security guards face trial in Iraqi courts, and that the company pay compensation to the victims, an Iraqi government minister told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The minister said the report was issued under the signatures of al-Obeidi, Maj. Gen. Tariq al-Baldawi, the deputy minister of national security; and Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, the deputy interior minister for intelligence and security affairs.
These are officials of the Iraqi government that the U.S. forces purportedly invaded the country and deposed Saddam Hussein to allow to come to power and govern Iraq as a sovereign nation. They are now exercising their right as an elected government in the investigation of the killing of a number of their citizens by agents of a foreign occupying power.
The cabinet minister said the report determined that 13 Iraqi civilians - not 11 as originally reported - were killed when Blackwater USA guards sprayed western Baghdad's Nisoor Square with gunfire Sept. 16.
GO-OOOOOO CUBBIES!!!!!
Guardian UK:
BAGHDAD (AP) - The official Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater shooting has been submitted to the government and recommends the security guards face trial in Iraqi courts, and that the company pay compensation to the victims, an Iraqi government minister told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The minister said the report was issued under the signatures of al-Obeidi, Maj. Gen. Tariq al-Baldawi, the deputy minister of national security; and Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, the deputy interior minister for intelligence and security affairs.
These are officials of the Iraqi government that the U.S. forces purportedly invaded the country and deposed Saddam Hussein to allow to come to power and govern Iraq as a sovereign nation. They are now exercising their right as an elected government in the investigation of the killing of a number of their citizens by agents of a foreign occupying power.
The cabinet minister said the report determined that 13 Iraqi civilians - not 11 as originally reported - were killed when Blackwater USA guards sprayed western Baghdad's Nisoor Square with gunfire Sept. 16.
GO-OOOOOO CUBBIES!!!!!
The Power of One
Minneapolis, 2007:
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
Chicago, 1919:
Eddie Cicotte: You said if I won 30 games this year there'd be a $10,000 bonus.
Charles Comiskey: So?
Cicotte: I think you owe it to me.
Comiskey: Harry, how many games did Mr. Cicotte win for us this year?
Harry: 29, sir.
Cicotte: You had [Sox manager] Kid [Gleason] bench me for two whole weeks in August. I missed five starts.
Comiskey: We had to rest your arm for the [World] Series.
Cicotte: I would have won at least two of those games -- and you knew that.
Comiskey: I have to keep the best interests of the club in mind, Eddie.
Cicotte: I think you owe me that bonus.
Comiskey: 29 is not 30, Eddie. You will get only the money you deserve. (Pause) Anything else?
Cicotte: No, Mr. Comiskey. That's it.
-Eight Men Out, 1988
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
Chicago, 1919:
Eddie Cicotte: You said if I won 30 games this year there'd be a $10,000 bonus.
Charles Comiskey: So?
Cicotte: I think you owe it to me.
Comiskey: Harry, how many games did Mr. Cicotte win for us this year?
Harry: 29, sir.
Cicotte: You had [Sox manager] Kid [Gleason] bench me for two whole weeks in August. I missed five starts.
Comiskey: We had to rest your arm for the [World] Series.
Cicotte: I would have won at least two of those games -- and you knew that.
Comiskey: I have to keep the best interests of the club in mind, Eddie.
Cicotte: I think you owe me that bonus.
Comiskey: 29 is not 30, Eddie. You will get only the money you deserve. (Pause) Anything else?
Cicotte: No, Mr. Comiskey. That's it.
-Eight Men Out, 1988
Friday, September 21, 2007
Same As It Ever Was...
UPDATE BELOW 21 SEP 07 13:46 CST
Ah, David Byrne, you have never spoken truer words...
September 17th, 2007:
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government announced Monday it was ordering Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to leave the country after what it said was the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. For starters, Blackwater has a bigger air force and more armored vehicles then the Iraqi Army and police put together. As Spencer Ackerman reported, Blackwater’s little bird helicopter (an aircraft normally used by U.S. special operations forces) that was firing mini guns at Iraqi targets on the ground this past weekend.
I can only imagine how Americans would react if there were Russian, Chinese, Mexican, or French security firms running around the United States and getting into firefights in tough neighborhoods, such as South Central Los Angeles. We would just shrug our shoulders and say nothing. Right?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
Jeremy Scahill on CNN:
SCAHILL: Well, the in fact of the matter is the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq. And so, instead, the administration has built a coalition of billing corporations.
SCAHILL: Right now in Iraq, the private personnel on the U.S. government payroll outnumber official U.S. troops. There are 180,000 so-called private contractors operating alongside of 165,000, 170,000 U.S. troops. So really now the U.S. military is the junior partner in this coalition. The mercenary component of the private sector involvement has been totally unaccountable. They operate with impunity. They kill Iraqi civilians and no charges are ever brought against them, in Iraqi law, U.S. law, military law.
HOLMES: If you’re critical of what companies like companies like Blackwater are doing and how they are behaving, what’s the alternative?
SCAHILL: I think the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq. And I believe the U.S. government needs to pay reparations to the Iraqi people. We hear all of this talk of militias and sectarian violence. What about the militias that the U.S. has deployed in Iraq that are running around the country unaccountable? No, I believe — and I’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq — I believe the United States needs to withdraw and pay reparations to the Iraqi people. The arrogance of the West, toward Iraq is incredible. This is a civilization that’s been around for thousands and thousands of years. We think that we’re going to somehow bring the solution to Iraq? No, these are people that can very much dictate their own destiny and they should be allowed to do so, and mercenaries need to get out of Iraq immediately.
Democracy Now!, September 21, 2007:
In Iraq, the private security firm Blackwater USA is reportedly back on the streets of Baghdad despite an announced ban on its activities. The Iraqi government said it had revoked Blackwater’s license this week after its guards killed up to twenty-eight Iraqis in an unprovoked mass shooting. But a Pentagon spokesperson said today Blackwater is guarding diplomatic convoys following talks with the Iraqi government.
UPDATE:
NYT:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.
In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.
The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policeman’s call to stop.
“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.
Ah, David Byrne, you have never spoken truer words...
September 17th, 2007:
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government announced Monday it was ordering Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to leave the country after what it said was the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. For starters, Blackwater has a bigger air force and more armored vehicles then the Iraqi Army and police put together. As Spencer Ackerman reported, Blackwater’s little bird helicopter (an aircraft normally used by U.S. special operations forces) that was firing mini guns at Iraqi targets on the ground this past weekend.
I can only imagine how Americans would react if there were Russian, Chinese, Mexican, or French security firms running around the United States and getting into firefights in tough neighborhoods, such as South Central Los Angeles. We would just shrug our shoulders and say nothing. Right?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
Jeremy Scahill on CNN:
SCAHILL: Well, the in fact of the matter is the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq. And so, instead, the administration has built a coalition of billing corporations.
SCAHILL: Right now in Iraq, the private personnel on the U.S. government payroll outnumber official U.S. troops. There are 180,000 so-called private contractors operating alongside of 165,000, 170,000 U.S. troops. So really now the U.S. military is the junior partner in this coalition. The mercenary component of the private sector involvement has been totally unaccountable. They operate with impunity. They kill Iraqi civilians and no charges are ever brought against them, in Iraqi law, U.S. law, military law.
HOLMES: If you’re critical of what companies like companies like Blackwater are doing and how they are behaving, what’s the alternative?
SCAHILL: I think the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq. And I believe the U.S. government needs to pay reparations to the Iraqi people. We hear all of this talk of militias and sectarian violence. What about the militias that the U.S. has deployed in Iraq that are running around the country unaccountable? No, I believe — and I’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq — I believe the United States needs to withdraw and pay reparations to the Iraqi people. The arrogance of the West, toward Iraq is incredible. This is a civilization that’s been around for thousands and thousands of years. We think that we’re going to somehow bring the solution to Iraq? No, these are people that can very much dictate their own destiny and they should be allowed to do so, and mercenaries need to get out of Iraq immediately.
Democracy Now!, September 21, 2007:
In Iraq, the private security firm Blackwater USA is reportedly back on the streets of Baghdad despite an announced ban on its activities. The Iraqi government said it had revoked Blackwater’s license this week after its guards killed up to twenty-eight Iraqis in an unprovoked mass shooting. But a Pentagon spokesperson said today Blackwater is guarding diplomatic convoys following talks with the Iraqi government.
UPDATE:
NYT:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.
In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.
The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policeman’s call to stop.
“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Motivation
GIs' morale dips as Iraq war drags on
With tours extended, multiple deployments and new tactics that put them in bare posts in greater danger, they feel leaders are out of touch with reality.
"I don't see any progress. Just us getting killed," said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush's speech aired last month. "I don't want to be here anymore."
Arthur's latest post highlights the oft overlooked and/or actively denied reality of the deliberate manner in which the U. S. has forced its will upon the nations of the world merely for the sake of doing so.
He cites a passage from The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman, part of which follows:
Wooden-headedness, the "Don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" habit, is a universal folly never more conspicuous than at upper levels of Washington with respect to Vietnam. Its grossest fault was underestimation of North Vietnam's commitment to its goal. Enemy motivation was a missing element in American calculations, and Washington could therefore ignore all the evidence of nationalist fervor and of the passion for independence which as early as 1945 Hanoi had declared "no human force can any longer restrain." Washington could ignore General Leclerc's prediction that conquest would take half a million men and "Even then it could not be done." It could ignore the demonstration of elan and capacity that won victory over a French army with modern weapons at Dien Bien Phu, and all the continuing evidence thereafter.
American refusal to take the enemy's grim will and capacity into account has been explained by those responsible on the ground of ignorance of Vietnam's history, traditions and national character: there were "no experts available," in the words of one high-ranking official. But the longevity of Vietnamese resistance to foreign rule could have been learned from any history book on Indochina. Attentive consultation with French administrators whose official lives had been spent in Vietnam would have made up for the lack of American expertise. Even superficial American acquaintance with the area, when it began to supply reports, provided creditable information. Not ignorance, but refusal to credit the evidence and, more fundamentally, refusal to grant stature and fixed purpose to a "fourth-rate" Asiatic country were the determining factors, much as in the case of the British attitude toward the American colonies. The irony of history is inexorable.
The colonial Americans were committed to their independence from the rule of Imperial England under George III in a much stronger way than the British army regulars and hired Hessian guns were to quelling the rebellion (insurgency?).
Andrew Bacevich(h/t Arthur):
The communists of North Vietnam were less interested in promoting world revolution than in unifying their country under socialist rule. We deluded ourselves into thinking that we were defending freedom against totalitarianism.
They were much more committed to this goal than the French and later U. S. forces were to stopping the misperceived push for worldwide totalitarian revolution (which was ill communicated to the ranks anyway)
Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the insurgent groups are all similar in at least one way: They all want to see the U.S. out of the region physically, politically, and economically. They don't want to destroy our way of life, they just want to be able to live their way of life in their homeland(s). The fact that we may not agree with some of what that way of life entails (and there are some egregious facets to it to be sure) and that we don't like the way they want to develop natural resources that rightfully belong to them is not an acceptable motive for our actions over the past several decades.
The attempt to tell these people what to do, when to do it, and to do all of it with a smile and shows of grateful subservience only serves to strengthen the resolve of these people to resist these efforts. They're not stupid. They know when they're being told what to do. And it's certainly not the first time, either.
With tours extended, multiple deployments and new tactics that put them in bare posts in greater danger, they feel leaders are out of touch with reality.
"I don't see any progress. Just us getting killed," said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush's speech aired last month. "I don't want to be here anymore."
Arthur's latest post highlights the oft overlooked and/or actively denied reality of the deliberate manner in which the U. S. has forced its will upon the nations of the world merely for the sake of doing so.
He cites a passage from The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman, part of which follows:
Wooden-headedness, the "Don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" habit, is a universal folly never more conspicuous than at upper levels of Washington with respect to Vietnam. Its grossest fault was underestimation of North Vietnam's commitment to its goal. Enemy motivation was a missing element in American calculations, and Washington could therefore ignore all the evidence of nationalist fervor and of the passion for independence which as early as 1945 Hanoi had declared "no human force can any longer restrain." Washington could ignore General Leclerc's prediction that conquest would take half a million men and "Even then it could not be done." It could ignore the demonstration of elan and capacity that won victory over a French army with modern weapons at Dien Bien Phu, and all the continuing evidence thereafter.
American refusal to take the enemy's grim will and capacity into account has been explained by those responsible on the ground of ignorance of Vietnam's history, traditions and national character: there were "no experts available," in the words of one high-ranking official. But the longevity of Vietnamese resistance to foreign rule could have been learned from any history book on Indochina. Attentive consultation with French administrators whose official lives had been spent in Vietnam would have made up for the lack of American expertise. Even superficial American acquaintance with the area, when it began to supply reports, provided creditable information. Not ignorance, but refusal to credit the evidence and, more fundamentally, refusal to grant stature and fixed purpose to a "fourth-rate" Asiatic country were the determining factors, much as in the case of the British attitude toward the American colonies. The irony of history is inexorable.
The colonial Americans were committed to their independence from the rule of Imperial England under George III in a much stronger way than the British army regulars and hired Hessian guns were to quelling the rebellion (insurgency?).
Andrew Bacevich(h/t Arthur):
The communists of North Vietnam were less interested in promoting world revolution than in unifying their country under socialist rule. We deluded ourselves into thinking that we were defending freedom against totalitarianism.
They were much more committed to this goal than the French and later U. S. forces were to stopping the misperceived push for worldwide totalitarian revolution (which was ill communicated to the ranks anyway)
Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the insurgent groups are all similar in at least one way: They all want to see the U.S. out of the region physically, politically, and economically. They don't want to destroy our way of life, they just want to be able to live their way of life in their homeland(s). The fact that we may not agree with some of what that way of life entails (and there are some egregious facets to it to be sure) and that we don't like the way they want to develop natural resources that rightfully belong to them is not an acceptable motive for our actions over the past several decades.
The attempt to tell these people what to do, when to do it, and to do all of it with a smile and shows of grateful subservience only serves to strengthen the resolve of these people to resist these efforts. They're not stupid. They know when they're being told what to do. And it's certainly not the first time, either.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Puppeters
Someone needs to get in there with a pair of sharp scissors...
Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Wherever we look in this world, we see the U. S. trying to install a network of puppets, who owe more to the us than to the people of their own countries. In simplistic terms, the corporate media pushes the idea of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'--silly symbols that take us back to mythic cowboy movies. In fact, any given leader can be a good guy and a bad guy depending on the time you're talking about. The late Saddam Hussein, now derided almost universally as a dictator, was an American ally just a brief time before--receiving a bounty of U. S. arms and, yes, weapons of mass destruction. As long as Saddam was using his weapons against Iran, all was well. Today, an Iraqi puppet sits on the national throne, a creation of us power, as surely as was the late Shah of Iran. Afghanistan presents an almost identical snapshot, a leader supported on a throne of U. S. bayonets--in a word, a puppet.
Why is it the business of the us to appoint the leaders of other nations? What's right about that? What's Democratic about that? We don't question it, because it's so deep in our national and international experience.
Why national?
Well, while many folks know about the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., how many of us know that the government planned to replace him as a black leader with someone who was more malleable, and less committed to civil rights? The FBI wanted to replace King with Samuel Pierce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan, someone who Reagan incidentally greeted as a guest to the White House, not recognizing that he was a member of his own cabinet.
The imperial industry of placing puppets over other people didn't begin abroad, it didn't start when one crossed the border, it began in the U. S., in an attempt to control and channel a popular movement. That's because empires begin at home, in essence, they export the methods they use at home abroad.
Democracy Now!:
The United States yesterday has lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government in an effort to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's struggle against Hamas. Last week Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. Abbas responded by dismissing the democratically-elected Hamas-led government and formed a new cabinet led by a prime minister who has the backing of Israel and the United States.
John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in an interview with Amy Goodman:
Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.
I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”
The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”
I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.
The degree to which this nefariousness goes is pretty remarkable. I guess one can't underestimate the power and allure of cold hard cash and the power and influence that comes with it, but one has to consider the ramifications to one's soul, as I talked about here and here.
Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Wherever we look in this world, we see the U. S. trying to install a network of puppets, who owe more to the us than to the people of their own countries. In simplistic terms, the corporate media pushes the idea of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'--silly symbols that take us back to mythic cowboy movies. In fact, any given leader can be a good guy and a bad guy depending on the time you're talking about. The late Saddam Hussein, now derided almost universally as a dictator, was an American ally just a brief time before--receiving a bounty of U. S. arms and, yes, weapons of mass destruction. As long as Saddam was using his weapons against Iran, all was well. Today, an Iraqi puppet sits on the national throne, a creation of us power, as surely as was the late Shah of Iran. Afghanistan presents an almost identical snapshot, a leader supported on a throne of U. S. bayonets--in a word, a puppet.
Why is it the business of the us to appoint the leaders of other nations? What's right about that? What's Democratic about that? We don't question it, because it's so deep in our national and international experience.
Why national?
Well, while many folks know about the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., how many of us know that the government planned to replace him as a black leader with someone who was more malleable, and less committed to civil rights? The FBI wanted to replace King with Samuel Pierce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan, someone who Reagan incidentally greeted as a guest to the White House, not recognizing that he was a member of his own cabinet.
The imperial industry of placing puppets over other people didn't begin abroad, it didn't start when one crossed the border, it began in the U. S., in an attempt to control and channel a popular movement. That's because empires begin at home, in essence, they export the methods they use at home abroad.
Democracy Now!:
The United States yesterday has lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government in an effort to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's struggle against Hamas. Last week Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. Abbas responded by dismissing the democratically-elected Hamas-led government and formed a new cabinet led by a prime minister who has the backing of Israel and the United States.
John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in an interview with Amy Goodman:
Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.
I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”
The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”
I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.
The degree to which this nefariousness goes is pretty remarkable. I guess one can't underestimate the power and allure of cold hard cash and the power and influence that comes with it, but one has to consider the ramifications to one's soul, as I talked about here and here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
More on the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act...
Which should be called the "Multinational Oil Corporations stealing Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act".
DN! on Wednesday, June 6:
AMY GOODMAN: As the Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical. It’s been a long time building. There had been some negotiations between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the -- as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it’s been very difficult for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like it’s been difficult here. As more information has spread, the opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken the situation into their own hands and struck.
This is really quite amazing and tremendously heartening. The Iraqis are finally seeing through all the smoke (literally) and mirrors of the last five years and realizing what all the ruckus is really about. Hopefully they'll be allowed to continue and grow as a representative group looking out for their own interests, which just happen to be the natural resources of IRAQ, not...
ANTONIA JUHASZ:If the law passes, US corporations have the potential to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection to get in and get it. Now --
AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, BP, Shell, Marathon.
The key to this is that while the Iraqi Parliament can and most likely will pass a resolution ending the occupation of Iraq, it must also be passed by the Cabinet, which is where Al Maliki has his base of support, which is essentially in the role of lap dogs for the US and its corporate interests in the region.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically, if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that’s critical -- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic leadership, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an out?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there’s many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President and for the administration. The only thing that’s truly going bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on the sidelines.
AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this law?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the law, it’s a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between South and North Korea," that’s a permanent military engagement, which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts, the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to pursue.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of this comparison?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It’s incredibly disturbing. First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, “Well, we’ve created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the way, our military will be really well situated to move forward across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where, oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's remaining oil.” It’s a terrifying proposition.
I'll say. Let's hope the Iraqis stick to their guns (of principle, mind you) and "Throw the Bums Out!"
By no means do I mean to refer to any of our military personnel as the bums in question. That particular moniker is reserved for anyone in Iraq solely for the purpose of making a fast buck on the destruction of a country, culture, and people-- from contractors all the way up to CEOs.
DN! on Wednesday, June 6:
AMY GOODMAN: As the Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical. It’s been a long time building. There had been some negotiations between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the -- as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it’s been very difficult for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like it’s been difficult here. As more information has spread, the opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken the situation into their own hands and struck.
This is really quite amazing and tremendously heartening. The Iraqis are finally seeing through all the smoke (literally) and mirrors of the last five years and realizing what all the ruckus is really about. Hopefully they'll be allowed to continue and grow as a representative group looking out for their own interests, which just happen to be the natural resources of IRAQ, not...
ANTONIA JUHASZ:If the law passes, US corporations have the potential to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection to get in and get it. Now --
AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, BP, Shell, Marathon.
The key to this is that while the Iraqi Parliament can and most likely will pass a resolution ending the occupation of Iraq, it must also be passed by the Cabinet, which is where Al Maliki has his base of support, which is essentially in the role of lap dogs for the US and its corporate interests in the region.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically, if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that’s critical -- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic leadership, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an out?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there’s many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President and for the administration. The only thing that’s truly going bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on the sidelines.
AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this law?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the law, it’s a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between South and North Korea," that’s a permanent military engagement, which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts, the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to pursue.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of this comparison?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It’s incredibly disturbing. First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, “Well, we’ve created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the way, our military will be really well situated to move forward across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where, oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's remaining oil.” It’s a terrifying proposition.
I'll say. Let's hope the Iraqis stick to their guns (of principle, mind you) and "Throw the Bums Out!"
By no means do I mean to refer to any of our military personnel as the bums in question. That particular moniker is reserved for anyone in Iraq solely for the purpose of making a fast buck on the destruction of a country, culture, and people-- from contractors all the way up to CEOs.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Never mind the river of blood, there's Black Gold under them thar sandy dunes!
Dennis Kucinich's statement concerning the Supplimental Military Spending Bill that was passed yesterday can be read here. It is a blistering indictment of the administration's reason for remaining in Iraq as an (unwelcome) occupying force and it's motives behind the 'incentives' being offered up before the current government in Iraq. The main crux of Kucinich's criticism is the Iraq Hydrocarbon Legislation, which will effectively cede exploration, development and production rights to the majority of Iraqi oil fields to US and other multinational energy companies.
“The benchmarks in today’s war supplemental force the Iraqis to privatize their oil industry by demanding passage of the Iraqi “Hydrocarbon Act.” The war supplemental blocks over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds if the Iraqis refuse to comply.
This administration has misled Congress into thinking that pending Iraqi legislation before their Parliament is about fair distribution of oil revenues. In fact, except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraq’s oil.
The truth is that the “Hydrocarbon Act” will open Iraq’s oil reserves to foreign investors, giving them, and not the Iraqi people, the ability to develop the majority of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields. The Iraq National Oil Company would maintain control of only approximately 17 of these oil fields.
If this happens, Iraq will be the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.
The wealth of Iraq, their rich oil resources, should remain in the hands of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
As Greg would say, "Gotta love those Petrodollars!"
Kucinich had even stronger words on the subject this morning on Democracy Now!:
Well, first of all, this is a question that is for the people of Iraq to decide when they’re not under occupation. You have to keep in mind that this process that the Bush administration has been pushing began even before the invasion of Iraq. They were meeting with oil companies, looking at how they could create a beachhead, essentially, in the Middle East, and they have been looking at the prize of Iraq oil for many years now.
And so, you have to remember that even though it looks like this legislation isn’t going anywhere, there is enormous pressure being put on the Iraqi government, and you can bet that before too long they’ll put the kind of pressure on them that the Iraqi government will break, will relent, and go ahead and pass this law that will permit about 80% of its oil to be controlled by multinational oil companies. Now, keep in mind that Iraq has as many as 300 billion barrels of oil. At a market price that looks like it’s going toward $70-a-barrel, you can be talking about $21 trillion worth of oil, 80% of which will be under the control of multinational oil companies, if it’s up to the Bush administration.
This is a crime, literally. And so, I’m challenging it. I’m letting the Congress know about it, and I’m going to keep an eye on this, because I think it’s the basis for a war crime charge.
When Amy quoted an article from the Plain Dealer of Cleveland citing the criticism of Kucinich's concern about the bill by the in step Republican Party spokesman:
I wanted to read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, your hometown paper. It says, “Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, ‘It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory.’”
he responds thusly:
Well, if you look at the facts, the facts speak for themselves. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney was meeting with oil company executives. They were planning this takeover of Iraqi oil. You know, everyone knows that it has one of the largest oil supplies in the world. This war has been about oil from the beginning. And I’ve been one of the few people who’s been willing to challenge it and say that. And I think the American people need to know that our government has been instrumental in trying to push the privatization of Iraq oil for the profit of multinational oil companies. Our soldiers shouldn’t be there in Iraq. We need to bring our troops home. And when someone looks at the long test of truth over the last five years, I’m the one who’s been telling the truth. This administration has not told the truth. And some of my colleagues in Congress have kept their head in the sand, while there’s been enormous catastrophe in Iraq, loss of life there, loss of lives of our troops, up to over $500 billion wasted already in American taxpayers’ funds. I mean, someone has to stand for the truth here. Someone has to stand for the Constitution.
One unfortunate omission from Kucinich's statements are an acknowledgement to the immense damage and loss of life that has been incurred on the side of the Iraqi nation and people. Arthur has plenty to say about that here:
Notice anything missing? Oh, it's nothing much. Nothing very important. Only a few small details.
Over 650,000 dead Iraqis, the overwhelming majority of whom never threatened or harmed the U.S., or even wished to. The number is probably much closer to one million now.
A completely devastated and destroyed country, which huge numbers of people have been forced to flee, and to which they may never be able to return.
The Iraqis -- the dead, mutilated, maimed, and displaced Iraqis -- did not have a choice.
I know it's not pleasant to think about, but we as a nation are being looked at as the architects of this mess and when we are called to account for it it will likely not be easy to explain away as "unwise policy".
“The benchmarks in today’s war supplemental force the Iraqis to privatize their oil industry by demanding passage of the Iraqi “Hydrocarbon Act.” The war supplemental blocks over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds if the Iraqis refuse to comply.
This administration has misled Congress into thinking that pending Iraqi legislation before their Parliament is about fair distribution of oil revenues. In fact, except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraq’s oil.
The truth is that the “Hydrocarbon Act” will open Iraq’s oil reserves to foreign investors, giving them, and not the Iraqi people, the ability to develop the majority of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields. The Iraq National Oil Company would maintain control of only approximately 17 of these oil fields.
If this happens, Iraq will be the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.
The wealth of Iraq, their rich oil resources, should remain in the hands of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
As Greg would say, "Gotta love those Petrodollars!"
Kucinich had even stronger words on the subject this morning on Democracy Now!:
Well, first of all, this is a question that is for the people of Iraq to decide when they’re not under occupation. You have to keep in mind that this process that the Bush administration has been pushing began even before the invasion of Iraq. They were meeting with oil companies, looking at how they could create a beachhead, essentially, in the Middle East, and they have been looking at the prize of Iraq oil for many years now.
And so, you have to remember that even though it looks like this legislation isn’t going anywhere, there is enormous pressure being put on the Iraqi government, and you can bet that before too long they’ll put the kind of pressure on them that the Iraqi government will break, will relent, and go ahead and pass this law that will permit about 80% of its oil to be controlled by multinational oil companies. Now, keep in mind that Iraq has as many as 300 billion barrels of oil. At a market price that looks like it’s going toward $70-a-barrel, you can be talking about $21 trillion worth of oil, 80% of which will be under the control of multinational oil companies, if it’s up to the Bush administration.
This is a crime, literally. And so, I’m challenging it. I’m letting the Congress know about it, and I’m going to keep an eye on this, because I think it’s the basis for a war crime charge.
When Amy quoted an article from the Plain Dealer of Cleveland citing the criticism of Kucinich's concern about the bill by the in step Republican Party spokesman:
I wanted to read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, your hometown paper. It says, “Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, ‘It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory.’”
he responds thusly:
Well, if you look at the facts, the facts speak for themselves. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney was meeting with oil company executives. They were planning this takeover of Iraqi oil. You know, everyone knows that it has one of the largest oil supplies in the world. This war has been about oil from the beginning. And I’ve been one of the few people who’s been willing to challenge it and say that. And I think the American people need to know that our government has been instrumental in trying to push the privatization of Iraq oil for the profit of multinational oil companies. Our soldiers shouldn’t be there in Iraq. We need to bring our troops home. And when someone looks at the long test of truth over the last five years, I’m the one who’s been telling the truth. This administration has not told the truth. And some of my colleagues in Congress have kept their head in the sand, while there’s been enormous catastrophe in Iraq, loss of life there, loss of lives of our troops, up to over $500 billion wasted already in American taxpayers’ funds. I mean, someone has to stand for the truth here. Someone has to stand for the Constitution.
One unfortunate omission from Kucinich's statements are an acknowledgement to the immense damage and loss of life that has been incurred on the side of the Iraqi nation and people. Arthur has plenty to say about that here:
Notice anything missing? Oh, it's nothing much. Nothing very important. Only a few small details.
Over 650,000 dead Iraqis, the overwhelming majority of whom never threatened or harmed the U.S., or even wished to. The number is probably much closer to one million now.
A completely devastated and destroyed country, which huge numbers of people have been forced to flee, and to which they may never be able to return.
The Iraqis -- the dead, mutilated, maimed, and displaced Iraqis -- did not have a choice.
I know it's not pleasant to think about, but we as a nation are being looked at as the architects of this mess and when we are called to account for it it will likely not be easy to explain away as "unwise policy".
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Harsh, and yet...
rather telling.
This latest essay by Scott Ritter helps to clarify what the history behind the infighting between the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq is really all about.
It is a convoluted mess. You think that Biblical history of the evolution of Christianity and the bloody repression it faced in the early years following Christ's death is complicated? How about the Spanish Inquisition and the repercussions that it wrought? The Protestant movement and its subsequent migration of thousands of Europeans to the Americas, resulting in the extermination of hundreds of indigenous tribal peoples? The Crusades? The Rennaisance?
All of them significant and traceable to the modern day political, social and economic swamp we find ourselves mired in.
However, they all are comparable to the turmoil and strife that was ongoing between the peoples of the Middle East when we were still ignorant of their existence and ways, or worse yet, cognizant of their existence but dismissive of their social structure, which was as sophisticated as a Western model while also adapting its own distinct characteristics.
While long and quickly mind numbing to the average American reader (bear down when you feel your eyes start to cross, it's worth it) Ritter's essay provides a brief rundown of the vital splits that occurred within the Islamic religion resulting in the three major competing sects of the modern day: Shia, Sunni, and Wahabbi, following the death of Muhammad and the ensuing struggle for power at the top levels of the leadership of the Islam faith.
What this all boils down to is that we as Americans have no idea what the root causes of the violence between Sunni and Shia Iraqis are--and even if we did have the respect and take the time to do so we would throw up our hands and let them work it out between themselves. It's been being hashed out between various incarnations of the sects for over 1500 years, so why should they all of the sudden listen to a foreign power who is only really interested in stripping the land of its natural resources tell them how to solve their differences and govern themselves?
To put it into perspective, imagine if a huge foreign power came over to the U. S. and overthrew the current regime (an interesting concept in and of itself) and then tried to institute a form of government that had never been put into practice before; all the while looting the natural resources of the country, dismantling the national, state snd local institutions; leaving almost no public services intact and putting millions of people out of work. The resulting unemployment would manifest itself in the polarization of these suddenly unemployed individuals by various religious groups which have traditionally been at odds with each other. The result would be similar to what we are seeing in Iraq today, only on a much larger and messier scale (the polarized divides would, I'm sorry to say, develop more along an ethnic (I'm loathe to use the term racial--we're all members of the same race--the human race) lines, with minorities at odds with Caucasians and the occupying force).
The occupying force would no doubt be undereducated as to the nuances of the cultural and social history and fault lines of the American experience, from the marginalization of the native American peoples to the enslavement of Negros and other minorities to the war that was fought to restore the Union and secure the freedom of all people in the U. S. to the repression of all those minorities and the various forms that that repression takes up to the present day to the class marginalization that is rampant in the U. S. and so on and so on. Due to this ignorance, the occupying force would have nary a clue as to how to address the violence short of introducing more armed forces into the equation, resulting only in the further inflamation of the violence. Over time, however, the leaders of the various factions would recognize the fallacy in striking at each other as opposed to the occupying forces and begin calling on their followers to act against the occupying force as opposed to each other.
In short, whatever nation or force took on such a task would quickly discover that they had struck an active hornet's nest which they mistook for a beehive full of honey that they thought had been either abandoned or was full of hibernating bees that wouldn't mind all of the honey being "harvested". Further whacking of the nest and other methods of quelling the hornets would continue to prove fruitless. How they responded to this revalation is another matter entirely.
This latest essay by Scott Ritter helps to clarify what the history behind the infighting between the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq is really all about.
It is a convoluted mess. You think that Biblical history of the evolution of Christianity and the bloody repression it faced in the early years following Christ's death is complicated? How about the Spanish Inquisition and the repercussions that it wrought? The Protestant movement and its subsequent migration of thousands of Europeans to the Americas, resulting in the extermination of hundreds of indigenous tribal peoples? The Crusades? The Rennaisance?
All of them significant and traceable to the modern day political, social and economic swamp we find ourselves mired in.
However, they all are comparable to the turmoil and strife that was ongoing between the peoples of the Middle East when we were still ignorant of their existence and ways, or worse yet, cognizant of their existence but dismissive of their social structure, which was as sophisticated as a Western model while also adapting its own distinct characteristics.
While long and quickly mind numbing to the average American reader (bear down when you feel your eyes start to cross, it's worth it) Ritter's essay provides a brief rundown of the vital splits that occurred within the Islamic religion resulting in the three major competing sects of the modern day: Shia, Sunni, and Wahabbi, following the death of Muhammad and the ensuing struggle for power at the top levels of the leadership of the Islam faith.
What this all boils down to is that we as Americans have no idea what the root causes of the violence between Sunni and Shia Iraqis are--and even if we did have the respect and take the time to do so we would throw up our hands and let them work it out between themselves. It's been being hashed out between various incarnations of the sects for over 1500 years, so why should they all of the sudden listen to a foreign power who is only really interested in stripping the land of its natural resources tell them how to solve their differences and govern themselves?
To put it into perspective, imagine if a huge foreign power came over to the U. S. and overthrew the current regime (an interesting concept in and of itself) and then tried to institute a form of government that had never been put into practice before; all the while looting the natural resources of the country, dismantling the national, state snd local institutions; leaving almost no public services intact and putting millions of people out of work. The resulting unemployment would manifest itself in the polarization of these suddenly unemployed individuals by various religious groups which have traditionally been at odds with each other. The result would be similar to what we are seeing in Iraq today, only on a much larger and messier scale (the polarized divides would, I'm sorry to say, develop more along an ethnic (I'm loathe to use the term racial--we're all members of the same race--the human race) lines, with minorities at odds with Caucasians and the occupying force).
The occupying force would no doubt be undereducated as to the nuances of the cultural and social history and fault lines of the American experience, from the marginalization of the native American peoples to the enslavement of Negros and other minorities to the war that was fought to restore the Union and secure the freedom of all people in the U. S. to the repression of all those minorities and the various forms that that repression takes up to the present day to the class marginalization that is rampant in the U. S. and so on and so on. Due to this ignorance, the occupying force would have nary a clue as to how to address the violence short of introducing more armed forces into the equation, resulting only in the further inflamation of the violence. Over time, however, the leaders of the various factions would recognize the fallacy in striking at each other as opposed to the occupying forces and begin calling on their followers to act against the occupying force as opposed to each other.
In short, whatever nation or force took on such a task would quickly discover that they had struck an active hornet's nest which they mistook for a beehive full of honey that they thought had been either abandoned or was full of hibernating bees that wouldn't mind all of the honey being "harvested". Further whacking of the nest and other methods of quelling the hornets would continue to prove fruitless. How they responded to this revalation is another matter entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)