Hell, I would support this, just for the opportunity to see a bunch of people running around calling themselves the Freedom Legion. They could wear spandex and a cape, and fight evil terrorists in the name of freedom and peace.
OW:
Can you imagine how many Carriles Posada's that would create?
It is incredibly obvious that this Max Boot charachter has no knowledge of the complexities that differing cultures have in the shaping of the minds of individuals within those cutlures. This moron shines with his exemplary ethnocentrism, equating everything that is good and right with a "freedom legion" (gessus f'in kryst) ofcourse managed by the US.
Anon: LOL
Spandex wearing Super Freedom Legionnaires.
I smell a comic book in this one.
His suggestion is only so off the wall because he doesn't have any better alternatives. Even though he is of age to join the army you don't actually expect Max Boot to do that do you. The U.S. can't afford to lose such valuable intellectuals who fight on the home front by writing pro-war editorials 
They should learn from some of the very convincing recruiters you have in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41.../uk/
4113846.stm
Didn't look like much to do with the topic at hand. Anyways, Boot does hold up Britian as an example.
But weren't you just praising the Islamofascists fighters in Iraq for their dedication, for their "triumph of the will" ("the insurgents think it is something very much worth fighting and dieing for")?
If the suicide bombers are recruited from the slums ringing Paris, from Spanish jails, from Manchester---why, that speaks of monomaniacal zealots so invested in a foreign nation that they'll kill themselves in the service of their cause, their faith ( unlike all you extranjeros Chavistas around here, safely snug in their First World cocoons, raging against the machine--zzzzzz).
Why the need to import the weapon?
By your logic local Iraqis would be plentiful, much cheaper than imported EoroIslamic killers. Why don't the locals take the bait?
The deposing of Saddam and the end of his payola to the estates of Palestinian suicide bombers coincides with a decrease of human bombs in Israel (helped along by the expiration of Arafat); what is the reward drawing failed immigrants or fervent European Muslims to use themselves as weapons, when the locals won't?
http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/...det.cfm?
id=1070
" Jihadists who have travelled to Iraq to fight suggest that recruiters also focus on well-educated, upwardly mobile men in their mid-to-late twenties. Of those European volunteers who have been captured, the average aged is 25, and most come from middle-class backgrounds and a stable families, without a strong religious upbringing. Many of the European volunteers spoke several languages and were technologically literate. Almost two-thirds – including Europeans – were married"
Sounds like upmarket versions of
Euroweenie Chavez apologists.
Kilo:
What exactly are you trying to say with your last post? Its kind of vague and insinuates some malfeasance. Who are you referring to wih the "you" comment in the your sentence.
Actually, the Iraqi insurgents are fighting the US occupiers, their puppets, and the foreign jihadists all at the same time. I can't link directly to the article but check it out here: http://www.windsofchange.net/arc...ives/
007038.php
Pretty darn good if you ask me.
El Pulpo -I understood malfeasance to be the bread and butter of the Bolibugguesia. I see now malfeasance where you claim it.
"El Pulpo -I understood malfeasance to be the bread and butter of the Bolibugguesia. I see now malfeasance where you claim it."
This is a young blog but I think you are holding the title for the most incoherent statement so far
I see. The Iraqi diehard Baathists must be composed of the same stuff as the New Men that Chavismo has brought forth, bravely battling young lads from Jersey, non-Baathists Iraqis, and Atta wannabees shoe-bombers from Milton Keynes simultanoeusly.
Such hearty folk - and yet, they couldn't hold on to Kuwait...
One good turn and all that: here's another jolly good read. Captures the spirit of this place very nicely.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLI...george.tony.tm/
quote "(David)Hare is a British twit of the tiresomely superior leftist kind. We have no doubt that if he, instead of Blair, had been Prime Minister, he would have stood up more manfully to the Bushies. We have no doubt of his pip-pip contempt for the primitive politics of his slightly dim-witted American cousins. This attitude is fun. And it makes us squirm. But attitude is not insight. We leave Stuff Happens thinking that the chief defect of American politics is its lack of sly and worldly Oxbridge graduates of the kind serving Blair. At one point in the play, a Yank says to a British official that 9/11 forever changed America. Yes, he replies, it made it more stupid. Maybe so. But something more than stupidity made the Iraq tragedy. About what that might be, David Hare, trafficker in caricature, hasn't a clue. "
And neither does any of the gasbags venting their bilge around here. Neither do you.
And with the richness of competition! I'm honored. You'll kindly point out the malfeasance Mr. Pulpo discerns, then.
Here's my example:
malfeasance http://dictionary.law.com/defaul...ld=%7C%7C%7C%
7C
n. intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from "misfeasance," which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees and others cloaked with responsibility.
Exhibit A: Francisco Carrasquero
http://www.el-nacional.com/canal.../
NuevoCNE05.jpg
His partisan behavior earned him a position in the Supreme Court, which his credentials as a lawyer did not qualify him for. But he did the Government’s dirty work. He deserved it; he earned it, he got it.
But it is now becoming clear that the former Head of the CNE was so unethical, that he not only hired family members right and left, but ran the CNE like a corrupt warlord running his castle. Mind you, this is not my opinion, this I not my anti-Chavez posture getting the best of me. This is the truth as expressed yesterday by the new Head of the Electoral Board, when he announced that he will void 1,086 personnel movements approved by the former President of the CNE after he was named to the Supreme Court. No, I did not make a mistake, it is indeed a four digit number one, zero, eight and six. One thousand and eighty six people in an institution of 2200..
You see Mr. Carrasquero who has the ethics of gangster, was named to the Supreme Court on December 13th. , but stayed in his post at the CNE until January 17th. where he simply acted like the gangster he is. He approved hiring 354 new people and gave salary increases or named to other positions some 732 members of the staff of the CNE. Now, this was no small matter. The CNE has 2200 employees so Mr. Carrasquero increased personnel by 16% and without having the funds promoted 30% of them. This without consulting anyone! Way to go Francisco!
But see this is nothing new. Before this took place, Mr. Carrasquero had named two of his brothers Edwin and Enrique, to important positions in the CNE, one to a regional office and the second one as Head of Personnel of the CNE! In this position the CNE hired nephews and nieces of Carrasquero, his wife and even his bodyguards.
Let’s look at some of them as detailed by Tal Cual.
-Sor Elena Luzardo was executive secretary of the CNE
-Sor Elena Luzardo was executive secretary of the CNE since October 2003. She is the sister of Julio Luzardo who also started working there in 2003. They are the niece and nephew of Edgar Luzardo. All three are relatives of Carrasquero wife.
-Then, there is Jesus Duran who started working at the CNE in 2003, he is a cousin of Andreina Fuenmayor who also works there and Karelys Fuenmayor, also staff of the CNE. The two sisters are nieces of Carrasquero; their second last name is Carrasquero.
-Then, there is Soraya Gonzalez a lawyer for the CNE who is the niece of Nestor Perez, Carrasquero’s bodyguard and childhood friend. Oh! Nestor’s daughter Ana Karina also has worked at the CNE since 2003.
-Then there is Carlos Martinez, son of Altury Tavarez who was Carrasquero’s assistant. We also have Ana Carrasquero his niece. Ramiro Finol, Carrasquero’s neighbor.
Oh! I forgot, the CNE's regulations do not allow any two relatives working there up to the fourth level of cosanguinity.
Thus, you can see that Carrasquero has no clue about why nepotism is not ethical and loaded the CNE with relatives and friends during his tenure there and after he was ready to leave.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2...2/
26.html#a2130
Well seeing as the oppositions predictions about Venezuelan have mostly been proven wrong - one example: http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005...-have-
been.html - and the assertions of the Bushies have also been proven wrong with a vengeance - WMD, it won't cost us anything as we'll use the oil money to rebuild Iraq, the war will be over in weeks, "mission accomplished", the insurgents are taking their last gasps - I'll lead it to the more discriminating reader to figure out who has a clue and who doesn't.
Oh, and for your audience? None of those thousand odd empleados fantasmas passed their GSCE! The work of you dear Fabians is not yet done in Venezuela...
I was going to say: " your evidence is what - Tal Cual" but you beat me to it!!!!
That Petkoff, he is sooo imaginative isn't he. To bad when he was in the government he couldn't imagine away inflation, or imagine away corruption, or imagine up oil prices, or imagine away doctors strikes....
BTW, what was that airline that a close relative of Petkoff's got to play with?
I'm getting old and forgetfull.
Cmon Kilo give us something good. Enough of this petty stuff. We want the real deal - money getting flown out of the country on private jets, houses with 5,000 square foot dressing rooms, "secretaries" who get hundreds of millions of dollars.
This petty ante stuff - it just reminds me of what your freind Marta did when she ran Channel 8. I want real stuff - billion, think billions.
I'll come back later and see if you got anything.
Oh, you know Teo! When he was in the FALN doing Cuba's work he was all
"When we speak of the liberation of Venezuela we mean the liberation of all Latin America; we do not recognize frontiers in Latin America. Our frontiers are ideological frontiers. We interpret international solidarity in a truly revolutionary way, and we are therefore committed to fight, to fight imperialism until it no longer exists; we are committed not to lay down our arms until North American imperialism in particular is reduced to impotence."
So you have to wonder why he WOULDN'T be skipping arm in armn with Rangel and Chavez.
Sera por haber nacido en Bobures?
Penny ante stuff? Bore you with crumbs like ViceMinistro Gordo Bermudez arriving on private jet to Miami and stuffing 40 grand onto his pilots, trying to get la caja chica for his pre-holiday getaway?
Muy poca cosa. Eso es como Johnny Walker Blue Label pa' un militar - ni apto ni pa' sacar gargajo, pue'.
We'll have to wait till the worm turns and inter-Boliburgeusia jealousy raises its ugly head to find out quien tiene los reales.
Once Bernal and Barreto finish calling each other druggies and accusing each other of frequenting gay bordellos, they'll get to Quien Tiene Cuanto.
Keep us up to date.
Oh My we got a wiseguy with Kilo:
mal•fea•sance Pronunciation Key (m l-f z ns)
n.
Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official.
Much like most other righties it seems like Kilo takes the subject matter and makes it his own (or attemepts to) despite alternate interpretations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...2&
q=malfeasance
Kilo: “I see. The Iraqi diehard Baathists must be composed of the same stuff as the New Men that Chavismo has brought forth, bravely battling young lads from Jersey…”
Well you see there is some distinction to be made of this matter. The significance of which should not be lost by learned folks in realizing that a comparison between people governed by a democratic state against those who resist imperialism. I don’t mean to say that die hard Baathist should baby sit your child, only to state that there are reasons to objection that play a major role in the as yet seen “minds and hearts” of the Iraqi population. In contrast we have, as you mentioned the Venezuelan “new man” who has not taken arms against his own people and perhaps may be the beneficiary of social programs that seek to incorporate rather than divide a population, who wants simply to live a fruitful life free of hassles.
More -
Conti'd
What division can be said of the matter, can be directly traced to opposition groups that see their privileged status diminishing as would be necessary in the incorporation of a country whose population witnesses a GINI income inequality coefficient among the highest in world. Due to their opposition the level of poverty in relation to the general strikes held between 01’ and 02’ have shown to have led to increased the level of poverty among the poor as well as created more poor among a population that was not poor before.
Kilo, are you one of the believers, that although Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with harboring terrorists nor involved in anything remotely related to 9/11, still insists that the removing of Hussein was just under the premise of fighting terrorism? If so Id like you to site samples of Iraqi aggression towards mainland US such as to warrant the US to nix the UN, and shame the honorable Colin Powell into lying to the security council, to achieve a goal that is/was completely unrelated to the happenings of 9/11 whose base of operation was known to be in Afghanistan with support from the Taliban gov. An intelligent person WILL make the distinction – An intelligent person WILL ALSO hide that knowledge. You seem to be intelligent I trust that you will be forthcoming on these queries.
So far Pulp 8--Kilmetrico O
Indeed, Kilmetrico--you just can't fathom why any Iraqi people would want to fight the fair-haired boyz from Jersey.
Give us a break--your lumping Iraqis who attempt to twarth the occupation of Iraq with your sterotyped 'terrorist' is played-out. Thinking people don't equate the US government's state terrorism with noble people who attempt to extrictate themselves from Uncle Sammy's boot on their necks.
Your bs line might fly in Little Havana but for the rest of the world you still a two-bit comprador whore who walks a little bit too crooked for the comfort of observers on the street.
And please--at least have the decency to use the same fake name that you do in the vendepatria blogs.
But it is good that some of your fervent rightwing Venezuelans have mustered the courage to post in O'Dubbya's blog. We need the company and a good chuckel.
Advice: don't .uck with Comandante P.--you just ain't gonna win dude. I have seen too many victims in the past half year.
Kilo:
Do you have camouflage "support our troops" magnetic ribbons on your daily driven or other wise driven vehicle?
If not do you have a pink one? and even if not, then do you have any?
for some reason i feel justified in asking these questions given the precedent that "just noticing" has set in previous posts.
Maybe you are prime candidate #1 to go help in all foreign wars with the goal of freedon as your cause. Do you own a set of spandex pants? Would you, or have you ever considered yourself to be a superhero? Do you have the ability to fly or perform other superhuman feats? If so There is a guy named Boot (whose adress OW can give you) where your services are muchly appreciated.
Good day.
Jim R.
I have my chainsaw lubed and primed. If need be Ill don leather mask but that is scary sometimes. You are not bad with a saw yourself there Jim. Why not grab one and cut you some supper? CUt em up Jim,cut em up. Just like possum pie. GO get em.
"If so Id like you to site samples of Iraqi aggression towards mainland US such as to warrant the US to nix the UN, and shame the honorable Colin Powell into lying to the security council, to achieve a goal that is/was completely unrelated to the happenings of 9/11 whose base of operation was known to be in Afghanistan with support from the Taliban gov. "
Pulpo, don't hold your breath waiting. Its been more than two years and Bush, the CIA, the FBI,etc. havn't come up with any examples.
Little child, Iraqi Baathism set the ball in motion with its invasion of Kuwait, setting the stage for an American military presence in the
Arabian land sacred to Muslims; you'll recall this affront was mentioned as one of the things that the attacks on NY and DC was to "avenge", before Bin Laden redacted himself and claimed outrage over the Lebanon 1983.
I'm not dispassionate enough to fathom the world of realpolitik known to the elites of Berlin, Paris and Brussels; the post-invasion status of Iraq was a failed state that fattened the wallets of the Baathists in Iraq and their hangers-on in Jordan, Syria, BNP Paribas, Cotecna, the inner circle of Kofi Annan, et al.
When the Brussels crowd championed the use of American instruments of war to carpet bomb the rump Yugoslavia - without UN apporval, fancy that- where were the peaceniks in Franco-Germania? Where were you? Boys from Jersey had to bomb, bomb, bomb a sovereign state with a despotic autocratic ruler.
So, if I have to choose my side between Schroder, Chirac, Annan, and Tony Blair- there's no competition there at all.
The Baathists you glorify are the exact equivalent of the crowd you lot bash: Cisneros, Tinocos, 12 Apostles, etc. Except that they aren't going to give up their place at the through to the Shiites as placidly as the Venezuelans gave way to the Boliburguesia - after all, the old Venezuelan aristos are now the bankers of the MVR and militares;
and we've seen Billy Carter's brother make peace between Cisneros and Chavez.
Your host would have us believe that these Baathists, the circa 1992 Chavistas of Iraq, are fending off the US occupation, the Shiites and Kurds (ie, those who weren't Baathist puppets) AND the arriviste from Europe come to strap on suicide bombs.
And all to regain their shopping trips to Sloane Square.
Pull the other one.
The level of chaotic rambling in your comments make Rosie O'Donnells emissions seem almost coherent in comparison, El Pulpo.
Little child, Iraqi Baathism set the ball in motion with its invasion of Kuwait, setting the stage for an American military presence in the
Arabian land sacred to Muslims; you'll recall this affront was mentioned as one of the things that the attacks on NY and DC was to "avenge", before Bin Laden redacted himself and claimed outrage over the Lebanon 1983.
Yours is a selective historical perspective which is borne more out of deception than ignorance but I may be wrong. Your lame excuse of a relationship between Afghanistan and Iraq is based more on the general animosity of Bin Laden towards the condition of all Muslims in all countries as he stated clearly in his 1996 fatwa. In fact it was the US armed military presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the first gulf war that drew the ire of Bin Laden and was the impetus for the direct attacks on the US. The real question is – Why is there always US military presence in places where they know they are going to promote unrest. I think the reason is obvious, but that Kilo does not make it just, or legal for that matter.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
terr...fatwa_1996.html
I'm not dispassionate enough to fathom the world of realpolitik known to the elites of Berlin, Paris and Brussels; the post-invasion status of Iraq was a failed state that fattened the wallets of the Baathists in Iraq and their hangers-on in Jordan, Syria, BNP Paribas, Cotecna, the inner circle of Kofi Annan, et al.
Texas businessman indicted in U.N. oil-for-food probe
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/1...ood.indictment/
et al. indeed.
When the Brussels crowd championed the use of American instruments of war to carpet bomb the rump Yugoslavia - without UN apporval, fancy that- …
* Considering the request by the Government of Yugoslavia for the establishment of a peace-keeping operation in Yugoslavia, as conveyed in the letter of 26 November 1991 addressed by the Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia to the President of the Security Council (S/23240),
1 Approves the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy and expresses the hope that they will pursue their contacts with the Yugoslav parties as rapidly as possible, so that the Secretary-General can present early recommendations to the Security Council including for the possible establishment of a United Nations peace-keeping operation in Yugoslavia;
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u911127a.htm
Did you mention something about bullshit somewhere?
The Baathists you glorify are the exact equivalent of the crowd you lot bash: Cisneros, Tinocos, 12 Apostles, etc.
Who is glorifying the Baathists? Another fabrication by you to make an invalid point. You are good at projecting untruths, that you wish were true, on us. I cant speak for OW but I am merely stating facts as I know them to be.
You mine new depths of mendacity, sir. You cite a 1991 request by a representative of a state that no longer existed by 1999, having fractured upon ethnic lines after the COld War. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.
Nearly every thorny ethical issue that's raised in Iraq was raised by the Nato war over Kosovo; I'm not questioning those decisions.
I'm pointing out that the same actors adopted one set of standards for a war of choice in Europe- bombing a European state with an elected strongman, without UN approval- yet those same French, German, Muslim hawks blanch when the same script was followed over Iraq.
Of course, Franco-Prussia and the UN bureaucrats weren't making their Agosto in the Balkans.
Unless you can tell me that you and the denizens of this site were as adamantly opposed to the Nato war on Rump Yugoslavia, to the pretexts used as a means to an end to justify a war that Madeline Albright, Wesley Clarke, CHirac, Kohl, and Clinton chose to wage---your arguments re: Iraq are not based on ethics, but are a convenience to engage your true agenda, knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
What Hillel said.
http://idl.stanford.edu/104/lect...es/
notes15.html
US attempts to replicate Dayton peace negotiations; Secretary of State Madeline Albright brought two parties together, isolated them from media, applied pressure on both groups to sign agreement
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) agrees to accept agreement but Milosevic refuses
March, 1999: NATO begins bombing without UN mandate because Russia was determined to veto any Security Council resolution authorizing force against Serbia
NATO claimed some international legality by representing a regional consensus; Kofi Annan and majority of Security Council supportive of war although there was no mandate due to Russian veto
Clinton makes case for war to American public
Likens atrocities in Balkans to the Holocaust; says US must intervene, but with air power only, no ground forces
On one hand, he must show that situation is bad enough to merit intervention; on other hand, downplays US involvement because he is unsure of public support
Limitations on targets: Pentagon advocates overwhelming “shock and awe” strategy; Europeans advocate careful, discriminate bombing
NATO’s intervention as legitimate but not legal
Ius ad bellum: was there a just cause for the war? Were actual and potential atrocities in Kosovo such that they justified military intervention? What are the standards for intervention, given that there are many terrible conflicts in the world?
Did NATO have legal authority? Those focused on UN say no, UN Security Council never approved of intervention
Problem: If Security Council resolution is the determining factor, standards are extremely high because Permanent Five veto powers make approval very difficult
Was there a reasonable chance of success?
NATO is most powerful military alliance in histor
in history, of course it will succeed, but at what cost?
What is the standard of success? Besides preventing atrocities against Kosovar Albanians, shouldn’t NATO also have prevented Albanian retribution at the end of war? Shouldn’t success be tied to a self-sustaining peace?
Was war the last resort? Some say US and Europe gave Milosevic one last chance at Rambouillet but Milosevic refused
Independent International Commission on Kosovo: no one took Rambouillet seriously; it was more like a pretense for war
On the other hand there are always options other than war; must be able to decide when enough is enough and force is necessary
Ius en bello: were just means employed? Was there a proportional and discriminate force?
War was probably more indiscriminate than desirable because NATO was afraid of casualties
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-
...agicblunder.htm
The bombing was conducted without the approval of the United Nations Security Council and was a direct violation not only of the UN Charter but also of Article 1 of the NATO Treaty itself, which requires NATO to settle any international dispute by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
The immediate reason for the air strike was the Serbian refusal to sign the infamous Rambouillet Agreement -- a 57-page document that called for a referendum on autonomy in Kosovo and provided access to NATO forces to all of Yugoslavia...
the Rambouillet document, drafted by the Americans, was clearly designed to ensure a Serb rejection. NATO needed its war.
I'm working on my posts now - but just quickly I was definitley opposed to the U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia. Totally illegit in my view. Just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was illigit as is the US invasion of Iraq.
Further, any evidence that the insurgents are "Ba-athists" (not that it really matters). For example is Sadr a Ba-athist? Do you think when almost all their leaders are dead or in custody the Ba'athists are leading this? I definitely do not think so.
Baathism is not confined to the borders of Iraq; ask the survivors of Rafik Hariri and all the victims of the Syrian Baathists.
How do you square Kofi Annan's endorsement of the Nato war vs. his displeasure over the Iraq action?
"How do you square Kofi Annan's endorsement of the Nato war vs. his displeasure over the Iraq action?"
Don't know. Although I will say he knows which side his bread is buttered on - ie who is on the security council and who pays the bills. In any event, I certainly don't take Annan as my guide for what is right and what is wrong.
Is Syria run by a party called the Ba'ath party? Sure. But they aren't the ones fighting in Iraq (not to mention they were part of the "coalition" against Iraq in 1991 and actually had troops alongside the US). Iraqis are. And the foriegners there are primarily from Saudi Arabia.
BTW, have you noticed how the Iraqi insurgency intensified AFTER Saddam's sons were killed and Saddam captured. It made sense given that the Iraqi insurgency is a nationalist movement not a Ba'athist movement. A lot of Iraqis didn't want to join up with the insurgents while Saddam was on the lose for fear of appearing to be fighting for his return whereas once he was in custody they lost that inhabition and joined up. This was brought up at the time in news articles (if I had had the blog I would have documented it).
DBC:
You mine new depths of mendacity, sir. You cite a 1991 request by a representative of a state that no longer existed by 1999, having fractured upon ethnic lines after the COld War. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.
Were you not the one who mentioned Yugoslavia? In any case the fracturing of the state and the subsequent atrocities that followed were still under the mandate of NATO. This is important to remember because as you state:
Nearly every thorny ethical issue that's raised in Iraq was raised by the Nato war over Kosovo; I'm not questioning those decisions.
I'm pointing out that the same actors adopted one set of standards for a war of choice in Europe- bombing a European state with an elected strongman, without UN approval- yet those same French, German, Muslim hawks blanch when the same script was followed over Iraq.
This script you speak of – Is it the same, as you claim, in both cases? On one hand there is ethnic cleansing, war, and general chaos following balkanization. On the other there is contained country under sanctions. Sanctions had depleted the country and they were dependent on assistance, which can be monitored and gauged. So when you claim impropriety by the UN - that includes the US, which has much more invested in the outcome of their previous actions. They knew and US businesses were part of it. Iraq posed no threat to anyone as is very evident by the lack of WMD’s which as you remember, was the prime reason for invasion. After balkanization there was clear and evident need for intervention – limited as it was
The situation in Yugoslavia was clearly very different and much more urgent than that of Iraq II. You can’t compare the two.
were just means employed? Was there a proportional and discriminate force?
Very good questions – weigh both scenarios hopefully you’ll see how the two are completely different.
** But they (Syrian Baathists)aren't the ones fighting in Iraq **
Let us not be disingenous.
**the Iraqi insurgency is a nationalist movement not a Ba'athist movement**
Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei wasn't murdered by the insurgency - Al-Sadr is wanted for the crime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...,935242,00.html
If the post-Hussein power vacuum sees one scion of a Shiite clerical dynasty dispatch a returning one -a rival- to consolidate power, one can only imagine the internecine stresses within the insurgency.
If you want to argue that the insurgency is a Sunni-nationalist phenomenon, you're on more solid ground. Seeking to restore their hegemony, and that of the Saddam faction of Baathism, over the Shia and the Kurds is not a manifestation of "Iraqi" nationalism.
How the interests of these dead-enders overlap with the Islamist goal of a restored Caliphate from Andalusia to ???, under Sharia law, with OBL as the caliph, beyond the removal of the Coalition presence and the blocking of Iraq becoming the second representative democracy in the region after Israel is beyond my reckoning
**On one hand there is ethnic cleansing (HALABJA?), war( IRAN-IRAQ, KUWAIT INVASION?), and general chaos following balkanization(THE CREATION OF A STATE OUT OF IMPERIAL REMNANTS, WITH DISPARATE ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS?). On the other there is contained country under s anctions(FLIGHT BAN? OIL EMBARGO?)
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/fy.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...rope/
638444.stm
Iraq and the rump Yugoslavia both fit -equally- well into either hand.
Down to their creations as crazy-quilts left over from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.
The "international community" set the script for the NATO action in the former Yugoslavia. Those who elected to intervene, under UN auspices, in Iraq followed the script laid out by France and Germany.
If the roadmap THEY created for the first-ever military use of NATO,without UN approval, in a sovereign country under UN/EU sanctions, a pariah state with a left/fascist strongman who engaged in persecution of ethnic minorities was followed by the "neocons", well,
thems the breaks.
Was going to war to prevent the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia a noble goal? Was acting to dislodge a similar despot, who wouldn't comply with weapons inspections (knowing that being exposed as not having weapons would kneecap his image, evaporate the fear that kept him in power), who CHOSE to allow an occupation of his nation, not following a precedent that the "international community" approved of?
Yet, you have the Euroweenies and the like-minded saying nary a word about the IntCom using NATO, while they find their "outrage" when the sequel affects German and French interests. European self-interest muted the anti-Amercanisn of the NATO bombing, which finds full bloom in the anti-Iraq protesters.
Too little, too late, too self-serving. These people, in Berlin, Paris, Frisco, Caracas, want to see the Iraq situation fail only to score points against Bush 43.
You can't tell me that,as we speak, when we can see ITV reports of the imhumanity, misery, evil that is being commited against the people of Zimbabwe by their despot Mugabe, while the "international community", even the states' African neighbors, say nothing, that the dissent against the Iraq action is based on noble ideals.
Siembra viento,...
"** But they (Syrian Baathists)aren't the ones fighting in Iraq **
Let us not be disingenous."
I don't think its disingenous to say that when 48 or so out of the top 52 most wanted Baathists are in captivity or dead, including the very top ones, its probably not the Baathists who are behind the insurgency. Further, in various interviews with insurgents, in both the CSM and the NYT, the insurgents have said they were not Baathists and wanted nothing to do with Hussien. Plus the US military admits it really doesn't know much about the insurgency or who is behind it.
So with all that on what are you basing your assertion that this is a Baathist movement? Right now it just looks like an assertion made to justify the US occupation of a country it has no business occupying.
"Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei wasn't murdered by the insurgency - Al-Sadr is wanted for the crime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/ S...,935242,00.html
If the post-Hussein power vacuum sees one scion of a Shiite clerical dynasty dispatch a returning one -a rival- to consolidate power, one can only imagine the internecine stresses within the insurgency."
The relevance of this is ... what?
"Seeking to restore their hegemony, and that of the Saddam faction of Baathism, over the Shia and the Kurds is not a manifestation of "Iraqi" nationalism."
Again, I just see an assertion here with no evidence to back it up. On what are you basing this assertion?
"dead-enders" Cute expression. Are the U.S. soldiers being killed daily dead enders? Watch out, there are so many U.S. dead enders they might need people like you to go fight.
"blocking of Iraq becoming the second representative democracy in the region "
Am I supposed to belief democracy is what this is all about? If so, why didn't they install a democracy in Kuwait in 1991? Why do they give billions of dollars to Egypt and Pakistan which are definitely not democracies? Why do they ban political parties in Iraq and close media outlets? Doesn't look to me like they have an interest in democracy.
IRAQ has confronted Syria with evidence indicating that senior Syrian officials have been assisting the Iraqi insurgency, it emerged yesterday.
The evidence includes photographs of Syrian officials taken from Iraqi fighters captured during the offensive against Fallujah last month.
US Marines in Fallujah also found a hand-held global-positioning system receiver with waypoints originating in western Syria and the names of four Syrians in a list of 27 foreign fighters contained in a ledger.
Hassan Allawi, Iraq’s newly appointed Ambassador to Syria, told The Times in Damascus: “Prime Minister Iyad Allawi wrote a letter to the Syrians saying he had the pictures but was not going to release them despite being under pressure from the Americans to do so.”
Mr Allawi said the photographs were found in the possession of Moayed Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmed, leader of the Jaish Muhammad group composed of former Baathist intelligence personnel. One picture showed Mr Yasseen standing beside a senior Syrian official, he said. Mr Yasseen was arrested in Fallujah in mid-November.
The evidence has triggered renewed accusations by US and Iraqi officials that Syria is providing assistance to former Iraqi Baathists who are believed to be running the insurgency from Damascus.
Former officers in the Iraqi intelligence services are also suspected of entering Syria using fake passports.
There are officially 250,000 to 300,000 Iraqis living in Syria, although the International Organisation for Migration says the figure is probably much higher.
Most of the wealthier Iraqi exiles have settled in the Mezzeh district of west Damascus. They drive expensive cars and dine in the priciest restaurants. Most Sunni Iraqi exiles openly support the anti-US resistance.
Among names mentioned by the exiles as leaders of the reorganised Iraqi Baath party are Sabawi Ibrahim, a half-brother of Saddam Hussein, who headed Iraqi intelligence at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, and Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed, secretary-general of the Iraqi Baath party regional command.
Many Iraqi exiles say that Syria is being unfairly singled out for criticism when there are many more Baathists, including senior figures of the old Iraqi regime, living in Jordan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1413431,00.html
the Iraqi insurgency was being run in part by former senior Iraqi Baath Party officials operating in Syria who call themselves the "New Regional Command."
These men, from the former governing party of deposed president Saddam Hussein, are "operating out of Syria with impunity and providing direction and financing for the insurgency," s
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
ac...anguage=printer
armed bands of tribesmen, among whom Iraqi insurgents, al Qaeda and Hizballah terrorists mingle, have expanded their control of broad regions on the Iraqi side of the border and aggressively attack any American forc
force or vehicle venturing on their turf.
Tribes dominating the border region are on the Iraqi insurgents’ payroll, receiving large weekly payments from Iraqi Baath headquarters in Damascus.. The Damascus center is the hub of the 4,000 ex-party leaders and army chiefs living in Syria. It awards the tribes a bonus for every attack they mount against American or Iraqi forces in the border vicinity, as well as a rake-off for every illegal transfer of weapons or explosives. Syrian regime high-ups, top military brass and officers stationed on the border also get their share of the cut.
Relevance: if a Shiite cleric will murder a fellow Shiite cleric in hopes of amassing power in post-Saddam Iraq, do you expect the Baathists desperate to recapture their priviliged place at the trough (as you put it) to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules?
These aren't cafe intellectuals pontificating in a Caracas cafe or a Brooklyn bedsit. They mean business.
Why does the US provide aid to Egypt and Pakistan? I suppose because they consider the alternatives even worse, less likely to stabilize the area.
Kuwait was a UN operation; you'll have to ask Boutros Boutros Galli why that oragnization didn't reform Kuwait; the brief was to tun back the Iraqi Baathist invasion.
As to why there is no democracy in the area outside of Israel -?
The Turks can make it work.
Arabs have been so enamored of nationalistic military strongmen ala Nasser, played to their advantage in the Cold War, etc, that democracy wouldn't seem to be a high concern.
Remember, too, that around the time of the Suez crisis the Arabists were loving the Americans.
The Middle East made its problems our problems on Tuesday, 9/11/2005.
We didn't start this.
DBC: "We didn't start this"
What the hell are you talking about--the US has been up to its neck in supporting oppressive Arab regiems for decades. They sponsored Saddam's rise to power.
Get a grip.
The bottom line is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
The US occupation will eventually fail. It is failing now.
Oil has a great deal to do with invading and occupying Iraq--democracy and 'freedom' have very little to do with US policy. Any cursory review of history shows as much.
At the very least you can do is extricate yourself from the corporat/state lies, half-truths, and propaganda that Bush et al. deliver as a matter of course.
Get a grip.
*Get a grip*
Your basket of agitprop and radical-chic attitude offer no complening reason to be taken seriously.
If there's any Marxist I give any credibility to, it's Christopher Hitchens - back in the day, before 9/11, his comparison of the earth-shaking years of 1968/89 was as lucid, clear and compelling an exposition of the far left's cause as any I've read.
I respected him when the had the guts to put to truth to Sideny Bluemnthal, and I have read few better surveys of 9/11 tha his:
"He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."
Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society. To stand equidistant between that and a war to remove it is?"
http://www.johannhari.com/archiv...icle.php?
id=450
You, the Internacionalistas, the cult-of-personality Chavistas, who affect this sophistry about seening causalities that the poor igonorant masses are to simple to comprehend - but which are revealed to you enhlightened annointed ones - run the same risk of loosing all moral bearings.
You can affect your poseur facade, you can sip your mojitos in Manchester, reading the Guardian under a Free Mumia! poster till the non-GM cows come home, you can gather in self-involved street theatre babbling No Logo Chant dressed up as pixies along Medea Benjamin---that in itself is your reward.
You can affect solidarity with corrupt, sleazy Venezuelan megalomaniacs who seek to grab power in a manner you would never countenace to live under yourselves,
in opposition, in Berlin or Vancouver.
Christopher Hitchens, I'll listen to.
You? Get a clue.
DBC--my point was that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
You don't understand that this invasion was/is all about the US empire's geo-political opprotunism and its goal of securing access to vast deposits of energy.
Indeed, you will have a hard time explaining to the average Iraqi person why the US all of the sudden cares about freedom when they, for decades, backed up Saddam H. during the worst of his tyranny.
But you are inclined to be a 'true believer'.
Don't expect the majority of the world's population to buy into your level of delusion and illusion.
Ain't gonna happen.
The US will eventually leave Iraq in disgrace. The same way US lies and terror were exposed in Viet Nam, Iraq will be a bloody stain on the empire as it becomes ever more marginalized in the world community.
I'd put money on it. History is a good guide--read it DBC.
About Hitchens--a ruling class tool, an opprotunist of the worst sort. Indeed, he is nowhere akin to a 'man of the left' as he tried to cast himself as.
George GAlloway put it best: Hitchens is a two-bit poppinjay, an alchohol soaked punk-ass who only convinces the rubes who are easily convinced.
The kind of guy that Fransisco Torro, M. Octavio, or a DBC (Dumb Butt Cruncher) would view as the second coming of Jesus.
DBC:
You sure do know how to muddy the waters.
“On one hand there is ethnic cleansing (HALABJA?), war( IRAN-IRAQ, KUWAIT INVASION?), and general chaos following balkanization(THE CREATION OF A STATE OUT OF IMPERIAL REMNANTS, WITH DISPARATE ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS?). On the other there is contained country under s anctions(FLIGHT BAN? OIL EMBARGO?)”
I am talking about the condition of each respective country at the time of the act (non UN sanction intervention). For the purposes of this argument only the conditions that were prevalent at that time are necessary. Spare us the history lesson. The condition of Iraq was that of a country contained.
• There is no evidence that he was producing WMD’s.
• The Kuwaiti invasion was already history and Iraq paying the price in sanctions and occupation for it.
• There was no ethnic cleansing during the time period after Gulf War I and before Gulf War II.
The condition in the former Yugoslavia at the time of NATO Action:
• Mass exodus
• Ethnic cleansing genocide
• Power Vacuums
“The "international community" set the script for the NATO action in the former Yugoslavia. Those who elected to intervene, under UN auspices, in Iraq followed the script laid out by France and Germany.”
Not quite. You see as I have already stated there was general agreement in the UN security Council that intervention would be necessary, as I have already linked resolution 791 (1991) http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u911127a.htm. There was no such consensus among the Security Council when GW (gulf war/ George W.) II was initiated.
“If the roadmap THEY created for the first-ever military use of NATO,without UN approval, in a sovereign country under UN/EU sanctions, a pariah state with a left/fascist strongman who engaged in persecution of ethnic minorities was followed by the "neocons", well,
thems the breaks.”
Thems the breaks then I guess – however compare international public opinion on both and see where you stand. Thems the breaks = iIf you are not with us you are against us. This attitude is what produces more terrorism as is being made evident even our secret intelligence agencies. Good work!
” Was going to war to prevent the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia a noble goal? Was acting to dislodge a similar despot, who wouldn't comply with weapons inspections (knowing that being exposed as not having weapons would kneecap his image, evaporate the fear that kept him in power),”
Where are the weapons then? What was going through Husseins mind is completely irrelevant. Hussein could have avoided weapons inspections for the next millennia and under the same sanctions wouldn’t have had the capacity to threaten anyone, not even the Kurds if he wanted to. Left untreated the situation in former Yugoslavia would have deteriorated and caused much more loss of life. You CANNOT compare the two, your explanations are weak and left wanting. I suggest you take re-read t
I suggest you take re-read that little snippet of yours on bullshit and gain from it what you didn’t the first time you read it. And I say this as a compliment to you because most others who share your line of thought are just ignorant.
DBC:
I have to say you are a master of mud my good man. Providing snippets of leftist rhetoric, made right wing friendly by you while not addressing the main issue. I have one question to this:
"Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society. To stand equidistant between that and a war to remove it is?"
Was Iraq under Sharia law at the time of the second Gulf War?
El Pulpo - Or Hussein could have had UN inspectors shout to the winds that his ambitions for N/B/C weapons had been thwarted, and that he hadn't the means to implement his desires. He didn't have the means to lob chemical warheads at Israel.
They could have certified that the Bull of Baghdad, El Macho, had no clothes.
Good for Iraq. Disatrous for Saddam. He gambled that the French,
Germans and Russians would save his bacon in the end, for their own ends.
He was living in a 9/10 world.
Jim R.-"History is a good guide--read it" ...El Pulpo- "Spare us the history lesson"
Ah, cognitive dissonance, the Left's gift to modern times...
Iraq, 1991? - do you mean that the International community was remiss for not acting internally against Saddam in 91 as they did against Milosovic in 99?
Again, you cite a 1991 UN document relating to a country breaking up in civil war; this is irrelevenat to the 1999 status quo. Nice try, tho.
"Left untreated the situation in former Yugoslavia would have deteriorated and caused much more loss of life."
Ho-Ho! Untreated,/b>? Like the Russia/Chechnya situation is untreated? You consider a non-UN sanctioned NATO bombing campaign as treatment for what was arguably an
Islamist terrorist uprising in a territory of a sovereign state.
Why not "treat" it as Iraq was "treated"? Ah, no oil for the EUrocrats and UN to skim profits from.
That's fine. But don't then seek out a higher moral ground and affect outrage that the Iraq action doesn't have Kofi Annan's visto-bueno; especially since Kofi Jr was raking in $$$$ from the inspection Corruption machine.
The neocon's didn't want to leave that untreated , I suppose.
**Was Iraq under Sharia law at the time of the second Gulf War?**
Had Bin Laden accomplished his restored Pan-Arab Caliphate by the time the Second Gulf War started?
"He was living in a 9/10 world"
I'll have to get back to this thread later but just for a moment humor me and tell me why, if we are in a post 9/11 world the US hasn't done anything about Posada yet.
and one more quickie - if the US is doing all this to fight these muslims who are trying to take over the world then why didn't it support the Soviet Union in Afghanistan instead of arming the "islamofascists" like Bin-Laden? See this is what is biting you and the U.S. (actually not you because you're not fighting) in the ass - the policies are too unprincipled and cynical. That will always come back to haunt you.
**About Hitchens--a ruling class tool, an opprotunist of the worst sort. Indeed, he is nowhere akin to a 'man of the left' as he tried to cast himself as.
George GAlloway put it best: Hitchens is a two-bit poppinjay, an alchohol soaked punk-ass who only convinces the rubes who are easily convinced **
Yeah, "Gorgeous" George is going to sway me. Elected in a district that's 50% Muslim, where Labour ran
a black, Jewish woman who supported the war. If you want to resort to character assasnation, you'll need to do better than quote a slimeball Antisemite when defaming a man of Jewish stock.
Hitchens writes compellingly of being in Havana in 1968, celebrating with the future leadership of South Africa; what have you done?
http://marccooper.typepad.com/
ma...to_hitchen.html
You have nothing but defaming a better man that you, for apostasy?
Pathetic, but typical
DBC:
“Good for Iraq. Disatrous for Saddam. He gambled that the French, Germans and Russians would save his bacon in the end, for their own ends.”
Ok. So what? What would have been the outcome if the world believed he did have NBC weapons. Israel would develop its own nuclear arsenal? Hmm. Actually only people like you really believe that theory. Consider if he did have the weapons and under sanctions – do you still think he would have used them? He was a rat in a cage there was nothing he could have done even under your own misguided theory.
“Iraq, 1991? - do you mean that the International community was remiss for not acting internally against Saddam in 91 as they did against Milosovic in 99?”
LOL nice try – How about Iraq 2003 ! No one here is talking about the first Gulf War but you.
“Again, you cite a 1991 UN document relating to a country breaking up in civil war; this is irrelevenat to the 1999 status quo. Nice try, tho.”
So what you mean to say is that in 1991 there was genocide in “Yugoslavia” but in 1999 there was no genocide anywhere because there was no Yugoslavia. Is that the gist of it?
Me: **Was Iraq under Sharia law at the time of the second Gulf War?**
DBC/kilo: Had Bin Laden accomplished his restored Pan-Arab Caliphate by the time the Second Gulf War started?
Is this part of the preemption? If so why not start with Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden is from and where the Wahabbis are concentrated? Do you believe that Bin Laden was nearing completion of creating a Pan Arab Caliphate such that it would warrant the millenniums newest crusades? Brother that has got to be the most asinine answer/question ever to come from you. Are you hittin the bottle with your boy Hitchins?
ow "Why do they give billions of dollars to Egypt and Pakistan which are definitely not democracies? "
DBC "Why does the US provide aid to Egypt and Pakistan? I suppose because they consider the alternatives even worse, less likely to stabilize the area."
I vote for this for most revealing exchange to date. God forbid there be free elections - they might elect someone DBC doesn't like - another Chavez maybe.
Very telling indeed OW. Particularly since at the onset of the most recet Gulf War Musharrafs presidency was extended. Now A reasonable person mught ask - IF democracy is what is being fought for in the neighborhing country, wouldnt one uphold the same values across the region so as to set an example. Nahh we'll have none of that OW, we need to secure a base of operations and that will come at any expense, you know, to promote democracy.
"the Iraqi insurgency was being run in part by former senior Iraqi Baath Party officials operating in Syria who call themselves the "New Regional Command." "
DBC, Kilo: You left off the first part of this sentence where the quote was attributed to a "U.S. general". Not exactly an unbiased or credible source. Of course they are going to say it is Ba'athists or Al Qaeda that they are fighting - they have to justify the war.
I still haven't seen a justification for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. There were not weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not attack or even threaten the U.S. nor did it take part in the events of 9/11. It had a brutally repressive government which no one should miss but it had that very same government for many years during which the U.S. actually supported and assisted it. Furthermore, there are many other repressive and brutal governments in the world that the U.S. is at the very least on good terms with and in some cases outright supports and helps keep in power. So I'm not seeing any justification for this war at all. All the evidence points to it being a war for conquest and power on the part of the U.S.
Why does the US provide aid to Egypt and Pakistan? I suppose because they consider the alternatives even worse, less likely to stabilize the area."
ow**I vote for this for most revealing exchange to date. God forbid there be free elections - they might elect someone DBC doesn't like - another Chavez maybe.**
You'll have to walk me through your reasoning.
Egypt was the first state to attempt to make peace with the existence of Israel, so US aid can be considered a carrot.
Is it a double standard, then, to ask US taxpayers to provide aid to Sadat's nation, which has peacefully resolved its territorial issues with the State of Israel, and not ask them to subsidize other autocratic Mid-East regimes?
Should US aid be given equally to Egypt, who signed the Camp David accords --at great risk, as Sadat might tell you-- and to Yemen, or Lybia, or Saddam's Iraq, or Syria?
Considering those nasties, is it unreasonable to reward the Eqyptians efforts at peace and stability in the region, to encourage their peacemaking, when the alternatives are coup-leading megalomaniacs like Quadafi and Hussein?
So be it.
How you get from there to "opposing free elections"-????
I can't speak of the details of the US/Pakistan relationship. Both states were not disposed toward the Soviet empire annexing Afghanistan.
Pakistan is a nuclear state, in a cold war with another nucear state.
US aid was stopped and sanctiones inposed in 1990, as Pakistan's nuclear status grew, and we know the estimable Dr. Kahn ran a profitable nuclear proliferation bazaar.
Post 9/11, does US aid keep Pakistan from tranforming into a thriving, liberal democracy? Is the failure of the Bhutto/Sharif/Muslim Brotherhood era, when the US and Pakistan were in a freeze, the fault of the US?
Is aiding a Musharraf-led, nuclear Pakistan better than aiding an Islamofascist, nuclear Pakistan?
I'm surpised that Chavistas are so hostile to Musharraf - he did what Hugo tried to do, without failing. Think of him as a Pakistani Bolivariano...
**you still think he would have used them? He was a rat in a cage there was nothing he could have done even under your own misguided theory. **
Well, if the rat could free himself of his cage by opening all doors in his nation and certifying, beyond the US & UK doubts, that the rats N/B/C capabilities had been eliminated, I'm sure the UN would have been happy to do so.
You'll have to take the matter of the rat's judgment with said.
**So what you mean to say is that in 1991 there was genocide in “Yugoslavia” but in 1999 there was no genocide anywhere because there was no Yugoslavia. Is that the gist of it?**
There was a civil war along ethnic lines in Yugoslavia around 1991; you cite a contemporary UN resolution.
NATO did not bomb Yugoslavia in 1991.
When NATO intervened in the remnant Yugoslavia, in 1999, it did so WITHOUT a UN resolution; you're trying to palm off a 1991 document as Un authorization for the NATO action. Specious.
As for the negotiations in 1999, I'll go to one of your camaradas "There is a very important aspect of the war that has received no coverage
in the mainstream media. In the Rambouillet negotiations, Yugoslavia was
set up, in the manner of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Already in February, a month before the bombing, it was demanded that
Yugoslavia surrender its sovereignty and submit to military occupation of
its ENTIRE territory: Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo, not just Kosovo.
Thus they could not reasonably have been expected to sign the Rambouillet
document, nor indeed have any faith in the people supervising the
'negotiations' once they read Appendix B to Chapter 7.
The entire document was released by "Le Monde diplomatique" on April 17.
Among the key clauses are paragraphs 6, 8 & 15 of Appendix B to Chapter 7:
par. 8 gave NATO forces the right to travel anywhere, by any means and
carry out any NATO assignments, throughout Yugoslavia;
par. 15 gave NATO unrestricted access to all telecommunications channels
throughout Yugoslavia;
and par. 6 gave NATO and its forces complete immunity from prosecution,
criminal or otherwise, throughout Yugoslavia.
For the complete document, the web address is
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr...bouillet.html\"
The point - the EUrocrats, French, German who oppose the Iraq action as being without UN sanction had no such concern over the 99 NATO action. Therefore, I take their objections to the Iraq action as not having the UN's blessings as being disingenous.
If anything, Iraq was under more severe UN supervision, given it's attempted annexation of a neigboring country.
Was the Iraq action elective? Yes.
Were the sanctions a joke, and Iraq likely to emerge, with Franco-Russo-German blessings, from sanctions?
Yes.
Did the neocons see a restored, rich Saddam as a destabilizing force?Ask them.
Did the UN sanctions and administration of Iraq provide cover for the action, just as European concern and the failed Rambouillet negotiations provide cover for the
NON-UN approved NATo war against Milosovic? I'd say yup.
YOu don't like the action - your opinion.
Was it folly? Time will tell.
Is asking why this, rather than carpetbomb the Wahhabis, asinine?
I wouldn't expect less of you.
Is hoping the Iraqi action fails, hoping that a rudimentary democracy fails to hold, just because your loathing of the US abd Bush is so vast that it's more important to you that Bush fails than Iraq emerges as a governable democracy a solid moral ground?
Hitchen's stood up for his amigo Tariq Ali when Ali was singled out as Muslim/Arab over theid anti-Mother Teresa polemic film.
Now, Tariq assails Hitchens as the Ayatollahs fatwa against Rushdie.
I'd be honored to have a few with Hitchens. He's a decent, ethical bloke, whose leftist views I don't share. I still respect him.
More than I can say about ANY Chavista I've ever met. Yourselves included.
You praise me with faint damning.
**if we are in a post 9/11 world the US hasn't done anything about Posada yet**
The man is detained, as he entered the country illegally from Mexico.
Now, I'm going to guess that were he anyone else you'd be protesting at this detention on an "undocumented" migrant by the US...
If you're implying that the government was protecting Posada, what would be the benefit?
He's useful to the Cubans and Chavistas for propaganda purposes: they can portray his extradition not as a matter of course, but as a "victory" against "empire", and in the meanwhile use his as tool to smear the US government.
In the post 9/11 world, you had people with blood on their hands running aorund, the likes of Arafat, the IRA's Gerry Adams, Quadaffi.
Do you fault the US for the fact that Arafat died in a French polyclinic, rather than in jail, never having paid for his murders?
Do you fault the French, the Belgians for not arresting and trying Arafat while he was in Europe?
Do you fault the Clinton administration for having Arafat and Adams as guests?
Better yet, consider Ilich Ramirez Sanchez: "a Venezuelan terrorist" serving a life sentence for his life sentence for "killing two French secret agents and a Lebanese fellow revolutionary in 1975" and "blamed for more than 80 deaths and hundreds of injuries" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...urope/
42232.stm )
"
"In a related development, last Month, G2B reported Carlos the Jackal, the legendary terrorist of the 1970s, has converted to Islam and pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
"Carlos, aka Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, has...published a book in French to announce his conversion to Islam and present his strategy for "the destruction of the United States through an orchestrated and persistent campaign of terror."
"Titled 'Revolutionary Islam' and published under the name Ilich Ramírez Sánchez-CARLOS, the book urges 'all revolutionaries, including those of the left, even atheists,' to accept the leadership of Islamists such as bin Laden and so help turn Afghanistan and Iraq into the 'graveyards of American imperialism.' . . .
"Carlos claims that terrorism is 'the cleanest and most efficient form of warfare."
What is the position of the Chavista Poliburo regarding this convicted murderer, terrorist?
"El ministro de Defensa, José Vicente Rangel, declaró ayer que "El Chacal'' no es considerado un terrorista por las autoridades venezolanas ya que no cometió ningún delito en este país.
"El Chacal'', cuyo nombre real es Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, fue detenido en Sudán en 1994 y trasladado a Francia acusado de haber participado en diversos actos
terroristas en ese país.
En la actualidad Ramírez, de 50 años, cumple una condena en una cárcel francesa desde 1997. Fue sentenciado a cadena perpetua por asesinar a dos agentes secretos franceses y a un confidente en 1975.
...
Rangel expresó ayer, a la salida de un acto en el fuerte militar Tiuna, que el gobierno venezolano considerará a "El Chacal'' como un terrorista sólo si "el Tribunal
Supremo o un tribunal venezolano [así lo] declara''.
"Eso es un problema que están juzgando las autoridades francesas. Ilich Ramírez no está juzgado en Venezuela. Las calificaciones que podamos emitir responden a
calificaciones de tipo subjetivo y no que emanen de un pronunciamiento de una autoridad competente'' comentó.
Rangel descartó que Venezuela esté considerando la posibilidad de pedir a Francia la extradición de "El Chacal'', pero reconoció que si Ramírez ingresa a territorio
venezolano no puede ser apresado porque ``no cometió delito aquí en Venezuela [donde] vivimos en un estado de derecho''.
El presidente, Hugo Chávez, declaró el martes en París, durante una visita oficial a Francia, que su gobierno estaba dispuesto a ``garantizar'' que los derechos humanos de "El Chacal'' "sean cubiertos'' en Francia.
"Nosotros estamos comprometidos con este ciudadano venezolano, especialmente para garantizar que sus derechos humanos sean cubiertos con atención a su familia (...) Eso lo hacemos, no sólo con Ilich Ramírez, sino con cualquier venezolano'', agregó el mandatario.
Desde 1999 Venezuela solicitó al gobierno francés una explicación sobre la manera como fue detenido y llevado a Francia ``El Chacal''.
La Cancillería ha planteado que si el procedimiento de detención del ex terrorista fue viciado, y le violaron sus derechos humanos, el gobierno venezolano pediría la
reposición del proceso judicial que se le sigue en Francia.
A comienzos de abril de 1999 Chávez le envió a Ilich Ramírez una carta donde le expresó su solidaridad
http://www.latinamericanstudies....acal-
chavez.htm
" Ramírez reiterates his backing for the ''Bolivarian revolution'' led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. His father, a founder of the Venezuelan Communist Party and close friend of current Vice President José Vicente Rangel, was also a strong Chávez supporter"
So, you have Jose Vicente Rangel suggesting that if a cold-blooded killer escaped from a French jail and entered Venezuela, legally or otherwise, he would be a free man ( and Rangel family friend, at that) because he had commited no crime in Venezuela, that he wouldn't be seen as a terrorist unless adjudicated by a Venezuelan tribunal.
So, perhaps the Americans are not in a hurry to return a potential terrorist to a country that coddles mass-murdererers, as Rangel portrays Venezuela? By Rangel's reasoning, Posada's crime in the US is being an undocumented alien, after all.
Or maybe the fact that this another case of selective ethics, that Chavismo embraces Colombian narcoterrorists as Venezuelan reencauchados-cum-Chavez voters, Chavismo cares about the condition of a murdering ( albeit Marxist g
... a murdering ( albeit Marxist gocho) thug so deeply that it tells us that it would welcome him home as a free man---
yet, let it be an equivalent whose actions are directed against Fidel, you have the Chavistas harumphing amd getting their knickers in a bunch, affecting holier-than-thou posturing vis-a-vis the US for not handing him over on Chavismo's schedule.
Horsehit.
You know it. I know it.
"Egypt was the first state to attempt to make peace with the existence of Israel, so US aid can be considered a carrot."
So the Egyptians should gladly surrender their freedom just because you like Egypts policies towards Israel? I doubt they'll like that line of reasoning.
"Should US aid be given equally to Egypt, who signed the Camp David accords --at great risk, as Sadat might tell you-- and to Yemen, or Lybia, or Saddam's Iraq, or Syria? "
And who is aking the US to aid any of those governments? What is being asked is that the U.S. not aid repressive governments - be they repressive governments friendly or hostile to the U.S.
"Considering those nasties, is it unreasonable to reward the Eqyptians efforts at peace and stability in the region, to encourage their peacemaking, when the alternatives are coup-leading megalomaniacs like Quadafi and Hussein?"
Why is the alternative to Egypts dictatorship Qaudafi or Hussein? I would think the alternative would be a free and democratic government.
"How you get from there to "opposing free elections"-????"
Easy, the Egyptian gov't refuses free elections and the U.S. through its aid helps sustain that government.
This selective support of freedom and democracy - or better said this using it as a pretext for attacking those the US doesn't like - is very obvious. This is why the level of support for the US amongst average Middle Easterners is very low - they see right through the BS.
"Is aiding a Musharraf-led, nuclear Pakistan better than aiding an Islamofascist, nuclear Pakistan?"
How about aiding a democratic Pakistan. You're starting to sound like a Floridafascist. Very nasty creachers those Floridafascists.
"The man is detained, as he entered the country illegally from Mexico."
Only after he was brazen enough to go on a TV interview.
"Now, I'm going to guess that were he anyone else you'd be protesting at this detention on an "undocumented" migrant by the US..."
Not if they had a track record of blowing up airplanes.
"If you're implying that the government was protecting Posada, what would be the benefit?"
Two benefits. One to placat the Floridafascists. Secondly, to keep him from spilling the beans about what he and others did with US help.
"consider Ilich Ramirez Sanchez: "a Venezuelan terrorist" serving a life sentence "
If the person is already in jail serving a life sentence the issue is what? You can't accuse Venezuela of harboring someone it doesn't have.
**Why is the alternative to Egypts dictatorship Qaudafi or Hussein? **
Because those are the choices that existed in the real world.
**I would think the alternative would be a free and democratic government.**
Yes, and in the area the only one that exists is the state of Israel, which is the US ally that, along with Egypt, receives US aid.
The state of Turkey, another largely democratic, secular, Islamic-majority nation, also receives huge amounts of US aid.
You have a beef with that?
Do you expect the US government to spontaneously manufacture the Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, Lybian, Egyptian, Yemeni equivalents of Kemal Ataturk? To support them as an Arab Spring envelops the area, and peace, progress, cooperation bloom in the land?
I'm cool with that.
"This is why the level of support for the US amongst average Middle Easterners is very low - they see right through the BS."
Yeah, I'm sure that's why West Bank grandmothers were in the throes of spasms of ullulating joy on hearing of the 9/11 attacks: because they saw thru decades worth of US toil and treasure in trying to achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - a peace that Arafat walked away from.
Thus, when Islamofascism attacked the US, the peace and democracy loving people of the West Bank, the Mid East, could do nothing but cry. With glee.
Just as the leaders of Palestine abd Jordan, when confronted with the invasion of a fellow state by Saddam, fell to their kness to kiss up to Saddam.
Because they so deeply cared about freedom and democracy.
CAIRO, Egypt - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a forceful case for democracy in the Muslim world Monday, telling Egypt's conservative government leaders "the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty."
Rice's remarks were to some 700 invited government officials, academics and other guests at the American University in Cairo. The setting is notable, both because Egypt plans multiparty elections in the fall and because the Bush administration has made no secret of its dissatisfaction with political progress and the treatment of opposition figures by the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Rice said. "Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/i...-rice-
egypt.inc
Thus, the US breaks with realpolitik and the ivory-tower views of so-sophisticated-they-might-as-well-be-Europeans foreign policy analysts.
You'll tell me that you can discount Dr. Rice's speech out of hand because---well, because, as El Pulpo tells us, she's Aunt Jemima, I suppose...
**Only after he was brazen enough to go on a TV interview.**
The perod of time between his "press conference" and his arrest was---???
**Not if they had a track record of blowing up airplanes.**
As I understand it, "Posada was acquitted twice in the jetliner case in trials in Venezuela... He escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 while a prosecutor's appeal was pending."
Fidel Castro's airforce shot down
two civilian aircraft over international waters; would you expect Chavez to arrest Fidel and turn him over for prosecution to the US, on the basis of his "track record of blowing up airplanes"?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/23/cu...cuba.shootdown/
**If the person is already in jail serving a life sentence the issue is what? You can't accuse Venezuela of harboring someone it doesn't have.**
So you don't find Rangel's assertion that a convicted terrorist would be welcomed as a free man in Chavez's Venezuela a) astonishing and b) at odds with the government's outrage over Posada?
No se puede estar con Dios y con el diablo
DBC: your speil about the US trying to achieve peace between Palestinians and Isrealis is pure bull shit.
Seriously guy, you should at least read more critical analyses about that on-going conflict. But it seems that you are inclined to swallow the empire's lies with adamant glee.
Touche--go for it.
However, most of the people of the world see Isreal's illegal occupation as brutal and hypocritical to the core.
About Turkey--the US gave this country support during its worst ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in the early ninties. Turkey's villany riveled the terror of Saddam--but Turkey is an 'friendly', 'democratic' nation.
And I have got some ocean front property in Bolivia that I am selling, in case you are interested.
and here comes the panfleto andante to muddy a nice interchange and debate of ideas. Seriously reggy, do let the adults discuss these world matters in paz, at least this time. LOL.
"Because those are the choices that existed in the real world."
No, I think the choice that existed that the US wanted to avoid is that the people of those countries might elect someone that the US doesn't like. The US has a history of doing that and opposing democracy when they don't like the outcome - Algeria, Chile, Guatemala, and Venezuela are but some examples of that. I have little patience for this way of thinking. If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat.
"The state of Turkey, another largely democratic, secular, Islamic-majority nation, also receives huge amounts of US aid."
Turkey is actually another example of a country where once someone they don't like wins an election that is the end of democracy. You can't be free half the time and repressive half the time.
"Yeah, I'm sure that's why West Bank grandmothers were in the throes of spasms of ullulating joy on hearing of the 9/11 attacks: because they saw thru decades worth of US toil and treasure in trying to achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - a peace that Arafat walked away from."
This is definitely getting us too far afield from this blog but I can definitely think of some reasons why the Palistinians might not be too thrilled with the U.S.
"You'll tell me that you can discount Dr. Rice's speech out of hand because"
Speeches are nice but actions count for much more. I'll wait to see what the actions are before I judge the speech.
"The perod of time between his "press conference" and his arrest was---???"
A few hours. But the time between his entry in the country and his arrest was...
"As I understand it, "Posada was acquitted twice in the jetliner case in trials in Venezuela... He escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 while a prosecutor's appeal was pending.""
That he was still in jail was from his still being subject to being prosecuted for this. The aquitalls were procedural (disputes of which type of court had jurisdiction) not evidenciary.
"Fidel Castro's airforce shot down
two civilian aircraft over international waters; would you expect Chavez to arrest Fidel and turn him over for prosecution to the US, on the basis of his"
Shooting down airplanes that are willfully violating your airspace and were given warnings I don't think compares to blowing up a civilian airliner.
DBC:
“Is aiding a Musharraf-led, nuclear Pakistan better than aiding an Islamofascist, nuclear Pakistan?”
My point was: that at the start of the attacks on Afghanistan surprisingly out of left field Musharrafs tenure is extended. I believe the US had something to do with that for the purposes of securing a favorable government and that would extend bases of operations. The Irony is that in Afghanistan the purpose in attacking was to topple the Taliban and bring democracy - that which was not being upheld just next door. As I see take your statements, what you are saying is that NO muslim nation that has nuclear arms or the potential for nuclear arms is capable of democracy and thus foreign policy towards these nations must focus on appeasement or annihilation. Am I correct?
“Well, if the rat could free himself of his cage by opening all doors in his nation and certifying, beyond the US & UK doubts, that the rats N/B/C capabilities had been eliminated, I'm sure the UN would have been happy to do so.”
How so when the US has veto power too. Don’t be foolish DBC, the containment of Iraq under sanctions could have gone on ad infinitum. There is no justification for including Iraq in the war on terror.
“You'll have to take the matter of the rat's judgment with said.”
This is a good one – What do you know about what his judgments were? Did you not say yourself that he was putting on a display of puffed feathers among the other birds.
But I don’t need to say much more about that when you said it yourself so succinctly:
“If anything, Iraq was under more severe UN supervision, given it's attempted annexation of a neigboring country.”
DBC Cont'd
“When NATO intervened in the remnant Yugoslavia, in 1999, it did so WITHOUT a UN resolution; you're trying to palm off a 1991 document as Un authorization for the NATO action. Specious.”
The conditions prevalent in the 1991 Security Council Agreement regarding atrocities in Yugoslavia were not only prevalent but catastrophic in 1999 after the official break up of Yugoslavia into its states. So if the 1991 SCA addressed the problems in Yugoslavia – By definition it includes all the member states before or after break up. The only way that your point of view could be made valid is if enough time had passed where the conditions warranting the security council agreement were no longer in place or if they were in place, not with the same authors and after significant period of time elapsed. Neither is the case, and in 8 years the situation which the 1991 document mentions was made worse by 1999. You cannot divorce the two both actions were one and the same and the UN was in agreement.
“The point - the EUrocrats, French, German who oppose the Iraq action as being without UN sanction had no such concern over the 99 NATO action. Therefore, I take their objections to the Iraq action as not having the UN's blessings as being disingenous.”
Call it what you will – you stand with a very small group. International public opinion for what its worth, will take my side on both issues. What does that tell you. It tells me the only being disingenuous here is you. Why you may ask? Because this linking of Kosovo/ Yugo with Iraq on the issue non UN sanction is nothing but pure right wing fabrication and reworking of historical tidbits in a sad attempt to link two separate instances as justification.
“Were the sanctions a joke, and Iraq likely to emerge, with Franco-Russo-German blessings, from sanctions?
Yes.”
You’re clairvoyant now? You know that would have been the outcome. Again remember the US has veto power in the Security Council.
“Did the neocons see a restored, rich Saddam as a destabilizing force?Ask them.”
You already answered.
“Is asking why this, rather than carpetbomb the Wahhabis, asinine? I wouldn't expect less of you.”
Classic DBC non answer. You cant come up with a reasonable explanation for that one. Its it is like a dagger in the neocon jugular.
“Is hoping the Iraqi action fails, hoping that a rudimentary democracy fails to hold, just because your loathing of the US abd Bush is so vast that it's more important to you that Bush fails than Iraq emerges as a governable democracy a solid moral ground?”
This is an important one so pay close attention: I do not loathe the US. You people want to affix that tag to anyone who has an inkling of dissent or questions the motives of the Government. The funny thing is that we find ourselves answering to claims like this (a hijacking in its own right) in order to defend ourselves. The real issue here is the fact that the US has no legitimate reason to be in Iraq! The same goes for the “support our troops campaign” That is clearly a hijacking of the US sentiment towards kids dying all the while supporting the governments efforts. Where has the logic gone in this day and age? I Cannot support the troops for the simple reason that they perform the actions of a government I do not support. This too cannot be divorced from its meaning. Back to the point – I don’t wish the Iraqi government to fail but even before that I do not support the governments illegitimate actions there so I certainly wont be around cheering. Let the International bodies take control, that is the moral solution to this mess.
So Aunt Jemima is making the rounds in the middle East when LO and BEHOLD lookey here:
U.S. Plane Makes Emergency Landing in Iran
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 19, 2005; 3:10 PM
TEHRAN, Iran -- A Northwest Airlines DC-10 made an emergency landing in Tehran on Sunday after an indicator detected a fire in the cargo hold in what turned out to be a false alarm, a spokesman said.
.......
The plane spent about seven hours in Iran on Sunday, while officials determined there was no mechanical problem, then bought fuel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5061900154.html
Me smells something fishy. Shenanigans are afoot.
The grapevine is that Bush is giving a speach tonight to the US public about the war in Iraq. Any ideas on new justifications he might come up with? Maybe he'll say they need to be there a few more years to keep looking for the WMD.
You want to read some funny stuff? check this:
http://www.southknoxbubba.net/
sk...005_06.php#4416
http://www.southknoxbubba.net/
sk...005_06.php#4415
**This is definitely getting us too far afield from this blog **
Oh? When the source of the Mid-East tensions has focused around the hostility to Israel, thru the 40s, the 60s, the 70s?
When the Arab oil embargo following the Yom Kippur war set the stage for the 1970s oil windfall that created the conditins for the rise of CAP and the Banco Latino pluticracy, the subsequent crash, and the conditions for Rangel and Chavez to come to power?
When Islamist terrorists set the stage for global instability that's seen a fear-premium as part of the curent oil windfall, that funds Chavez and the Generals and the New Apostles in Venezuela Saudita 2.0?
I'd say the nexus of oil wealth and reserves, inter-Arab conflicts, and the hostility towards the US for not hanging Israel out to dry is not
insubstantial to a blog dedicated to Oil Wars....
There is truth to what you write - of course it is all related. But its hard enough for one blogger to keep up with Venezuela, Iraq, and Oil much less the whole Palistinian-Israeli dispute.
Anyways, I can tell you we won't agree on that any more than we will anything on Venezuela or Iraq. I definitely view the constand hegemony of Israel one of the fundemental problems in the Middle East.
There is a good site on this: Gush Shalom
**If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat.**
"When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted...Hitler (appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933)had promised a general election for March 1933...The election took place in March - though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag"
You see a linkage between supporting free elections (and campaigning, et al, I guess) and supporting the results of said free elections, if not "you are no democrat" You can support a nation's freedom to choose without thereby being obliged to support their choices.
There is _no reason_ a sane person could not support the electoral process in Weimar Germany and have _any_ obligation beyond recognizing the validity of the election of Herr Hitler.
If any rational person could see that a democratically elected leader sought to then close the door behind him, eliminate the separation of powers, merge Party with Goverment with State, the military with the government, and institute a sham election process that would see that the party would never again face a free and fair election, what obligation does a person have to support the Trojan Horse who came in democratically, and trashed the system that he rode to power?
OW:
Youd better watch out DBC can make a link between Osama Bin Laden and Kevin Bacon in less than 6 degrees of seperation.
As your quote mentions a couple times Hitler wasn't elected - he was appointed by Hindenburg. So the notion that he was elected or supported by the majority of Germans is false.
But even if he had been the point is what? This would be ONE case were an elected person turned out to be a despot. The overwhelming majority of elected leaders govern democratically and continue with electoral politics - just as Chavez has. The point you seem to be getting at is that is ok to not hold elections at all because whoever is elected presumably may not allow future elections. Not much logic there - "we are afraid so and so might turn the country into a dictatorship if he wins an election so we'll just leave it as a dictatorship and not allow him to be elected in the first place".
This is just a pathetic attempt to justify thwarting peoples fundemental right to elect their own government.
ow - Take it from a fellow anti-Conservative career leftie like Hitchens, and see if you can discern the difference between the elitist, sang-froid realpolitik policy wonks who advocated a laissez-faire/benign neglect approach to the lack of democracy in the Mideast and the Wolfowitzian neocon Vulcans' take
"I first became interested in the neocons during the war in Bosnia-Herzgovinia. That war in the early 1990s changed a lot for me. I never thought I would see, in Europe, a full-dress reprise of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstiutution of torture and rape as acts of policy. And I didn't expect so many of my comrades to be indifferent - or even take the side of the fascists...you had people like Noam Chomsky's co-author Ed Herman go from saying ?Do nothing in the Balkans', to actually supporting[ital] Milosevic, the most reactionary force in the region."
"That's when I began to first find myself on the same side as the neocons. I was signing petitions in favour of action in Bosnia, and I would look down the list of names and I kept finding, there's Richard Perle. There's Paul Wolfowitz. That seemed interesting to me. These people were saying that we had to act." He continues, "Before, I had avoided them like the plague, especially because of what they said about General Sharon and about Nicaragua. But nobody could say they were interested in oil in the Balkans, or in strategic needs, and the people who tried to say that - like Chomsky - looked ridiculous. So now I was interested.
"There are two strands of conservatism on the US right that Hitch has always opposed. The first was the Barry Goldwater-Pat Buchanan isolationist right. They argued for "America First" - disengagement from the world, and the abandonment of Europe to fascism. The second was the Henry Kissinger right, which argued for the installation of pro-American, pro-business regimes, even if it meant liquidating democracies (as in Chile or Iran) and supporting and equipping practitioners of genocide
He believes neoconservatism is a distinctively new strain of thought, preached by ex-leftists, who believed in using US power to spread democracy. "It's explicitly anti-Kissingerian. Kissinger hates this stuff. He opposed intervening in the Balkans. Kissinger Associates were dead against [the war in] Iraq. He can't understand the idea of backing democracy - it's totally alien to him."
"So that interest in the neocons re-emerged after September 11th. They were saying - we can't carry on with the approach to the Middle East we have had for the past fifty years. We cannot go on with this proxy rule racket, where we back tyranny in the region for the sake of stability. So we have to take the risk of uncorking it and hoping the more progressive side wins." He has replaced a belief in Marxist revolution with a belief in spreading the American revolution. Thomas Jefferso
**NO muslim nation that has nuclear arms or the potential for nuclear arms is capable of democracy and thus foreign policy towards these nations must focus on appeasement or annihilation. Am I correct?**
Yeah, that explains Turkey. NATO member, EU candidate Turkey.
I suppose you'd like to see the US depose Musharraf and restore the Bhutto corruptocracy, the equivalent of the Adecos/oligarchs that you despise in Venezuela? Yeah, politics make for strange bedfellows
**“Were the sanctions a joke, and Iraq likely to emerge, with Franco-Russo-German blessings, from sanctions?Yes.” ***You know that would have been the outcome. Again remember the US has veto power in the Security Council"
" August 1, 2000 French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said on Tuesday that the economic sanctions against Iraq imposed 10 years ago should be lifted... He said that France is counting on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 to have U.N. arms control re-established and sanctions lifted. The resolution was adopted in December 1999 to renew the cooperation between the U.N. and Iraq over arms inspection while promising to suspend the sanctions in case Iraq cooperates. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/secu...aq1/
000801b.htm
" STATEMENT BY SPOKESPERSON
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Paris, France 26 February 2001
Excerpts
Q: What is your reaction to the statement by Mr. Jagland, the Norwegian foreign minister, proposing to lift the sanctions affecting Iraqi populations?
We share Norway's analysis of the sanctions on Iraq. "
*******************
U.S. considers lifting non-military Iraq sanctions
(note FECHA )
February 27, 2001
"In what would be a major policy change, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that the United States was seriously considering supporting the lifting of all non-military U.N. sanctions against Iraq.
The U.N. sanctions program was designed to force Iraq to destroy its ability to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction.
Critics say the sanctions failed in their goal but caused the Iraqi people to suffer.
Following three days of talks with leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, Powell said the United States was in the process of shaping new sanctions, which would target Iraq's military exclusively and not the Iraqi people.
Powell said these ideas resonated throughout the region, where support for sanctions had greatly diminished.
The Bush administration has as much as acknowledged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has won the propaganda war and succeeded in convincing the Arab world that the sanctions had caused the Iraqi people to suffer. But declining support in the Arab world and international opposition has led to a system which U.S. President George W. Bush compared to Swiss cheese in its effectiveness.
The United States and Great B
Britain, permanent U.N. Security Council members, strongly support the economic sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Sanctions against Iraq are supposed to remain in place until Baghdad complies with demands to dismantle its ability to produce weapons of mass destruction to the satisfaction of U.N. inspectors.
But Russia, China and France, also permanent members of the Security Council, favor an easing or an abolition of sanctions.
Several "humanitarian flights" originating from France, Russia and various Arab nations have landed in Baghdad during the past year, in breach of the sanctions.
Russia wants the sanctions lifted so it can resume lucrative oil contracts with Baghdad and have Iraq repay $8 billion it owes Moscow in Soviet-era debt.
Under the 1996 oil-for-food program, all revenue from sales of Iraqi oil is put into an escrow fund, which is then used to buy humanitarian aid and food for the Iraqi people.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last September, former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler said, "given the last 22 months, given today's circumstances of crumbling sanctions, given the fact that he is back in the arms business, it follows as the night follows the day for me to say what I am saying: These sanctions are not working."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WOR.../02/27/us.iraq/
*****************
Russia to Gain if UN Lifts Iraq Sanctions
By Mikhail Alandarenko
ITAR-TASS News Agency
July 11, 2000
Russia will gain if the U. N. lifts sanctions imposed on Iraq, an expert for the Moscow-based Institute for Oriental Studies said on Tuesday. "Iraq is a vast market for Russian goods. Besides, it will be able to return its debt to Russia once the international blockade is over," the head of the Arab department's economic sector, Alexander Filonik, told Itar-Tass. "When sanctions are finally lifted -- and they will be abolished some day because they cannot last for ever -- Baghdad will be again a partner of Moscow's, the way it was during the days of the former Soviet Union," Filonik said... experts have not come to a unanimous conclusion about whether the lifting of sanctions will help or damage Russia. From the one hand, Baghdad is expected to repay its several- billion-dollar debt to Moscow. On the other hand, oil prices may drop once Iraq is allowed to produce fuel on a large scale, which will be an absolutely unwelcome prospect for Russia's export-oriented economy.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/secu...iraq/
000711.htm
***
June 12, 2001
In December 1999, after a year of air strikes and continuing political deadlock, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1284, which would suspend sanctions for renewable 120-day periods, provided Baghdad cooperates with a new UN arms control body, called the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commissi
Commission (UNMOVIC). The resolution also lifted the ceiling on oil exports, but kept the revenues under strict UN control. Saddam rejected the resolution, pledging to refuse access to weapons inspectors without an unconditional lifting of sanctions. Hans Blix, a Swedish former foreign minister and director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was chosen in January 2000 to head UNMOVIC. Blix assembled a staff of politically neutral arms experts and technical personnel in order to encourage Iraqi cooperation, but Iraq refused to comply with the commission.
Saddam has skillfully exploited divisions among Security Council members over sanctions. While the U.S. and Britain take a hardline approach, China, France, and Russia have pushed for lifting the sanctions in order to restore economic ties with Iraq. Sidestepping a ban on commercial flights to Iraq, both Russia and France began sending relief flights after Iraq reopened its international airport in August. By the end of the year, private flights carrying humanitarian aid and delegations interested in trade links were coming regularly from Europe, Africa, and Arab states. Iraqi officials met with foreign counterparts to discuss economic and political cooperation. Talks with Iran produced agreement to work toward normalization, while Saudi Arabia agreed to open its border with Iraq to facilitate Iraqi exports, and an oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria reopened in November after 18 years. A Baghdad trade fair in November drew 14 ministers and senior officials from Arab countries, as well as representatives from eight non-Arab countries.
As sanctions erode, illicit trade is rife. Iraq continues to smuggle oil through Turkey and the Persian Gulf. Observers estimate that for every legitimate load exported through Turkey, some 200 go illegally. With oil prices high in 2000, clandestine trade is extremely lucrative, even if most Iraqis do not reap the benefits. Considering that Iraq has been able to break free of international isolation and enjoy economic benefits without cooperating with the UN, it seems unlikely that Saddam will allow weapons inspectors to return. In fact, his defiance of the West has only increased; he sent domestic flights to violate no-fly zones in November, and halted oil exports temporarily in December in a dispute with the UN over pricing.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/rese...atings/
iraq.htm
**Let the International bodies take control, that is the moral solution to this mess.**
The International Bodies, like you, are hoping that the Iraq action fails, so that Bush 43 fails, and they -and you- can be vindicated.
It is more important to these parties that Bush fails than, somehow, chicken salad might be made form chicken$hit, and that successful representative democracies in the region might number Israel, Turkey, and Iraq.
For eleemosinary reasons, or self-interested ones, I hope that the Iraqis follow the lead of the Kurds, who built a stable region under the US/UK aegis, protected from Saddam.
I hope the Baathist Sunni/Islamofascist terrorist fail.
We don't see eye-to-eye on this,
well, life goes on.
**ONE case were an elected person turned out to be a despot.**
Nazis 17.3 million votes
Peron was first elected president in 1946 and was extremely popular even though he was an authoritarian ruler. Peron was a populist, a nationalist and a fascist sympathizer...Peron altered the constitution to increase his powers and to allow himself a second-term as president. (Argentina's constitution allowed one term of six years.) He suspended freedoms of speech and press. His charm and appeal to Argentina's national pride helped him remain popular.His political program, which he called a third position between capitalism and communism, was strongly nationalistic, anti-imperialist and anti-United States. ( Sounds familiar...)It was based on rapid industrialization and economic self-sufficiency. In power, Perón became increasingly authoritarian: opponents were jailed, the press was muzzled or shut down, and education was strictly controlled. With the aid of his popular wife, Eva Duarte de Perón, he converted trade unions into a militant organization, known as the descamisados [shirtless ones], along fascist lines.
**The point you seem to be getting at is that is ok to not hold elections at all because whoever is elected presumably may not allow future elections.**
No, it's that the totality of Supporting Free Election involves, well, supporting free elections. If the people in their wisdom elect a Peron, a Mugabe, a Hitler, an Ahmadinejad,
a Chancellor Palpatine, do I understand your position to be that anyone who fails to "support" anything these jokers do is not a "true democrat?"
Well, gee, cousin Susie freely elected to marry Fidel, who, it turns out, is a wife-beating schumck. Alas, because I support the concept of freely electing, I cannot say anything disparaging about Fidel, because that would devalue both Susie's free choice, and my commitment to same. Thus, I am compelled to support Susie's free, stupid choice, to the bitter end.
Anything other would be a a pathetic attempt to thwart Susie's fundemental right to elect.
"Geez, Sooz, what the hell were you thinking?" would then be a FloridaFascist neocon attempt to subvert the will of the people?
** This is just a pathetic attempt to justify thwarting peoples fundemental right to elect their own government **
Reconcile this with Chavismo,
February 4, 1992
November 27, 1992.
Are you done babbling yet? Coincidentally Ill bet you have sturdy, muscled, suasage fingers to allow you to write so much.
If you'll allow me to interject:
"No, it's that the totality of Supporting Free Election involves, well, supporting free elections. If the people in their wisdom elect a Peron, a Mugabe, a Hitler, an Ahmadinejad, a Chancellor Palpatine, do I understand your position to be that anyone who fails to "support" anything these jokers do is not a "true democrat?""
No - But if your alternative is anything less than what brought them into place then you are doing a disservice. Ergo Carmona, but that whole fiasco, as we all know, was illegal from the start, not unlike the subversive US program to weed out Socialist movements.
It's not MY alternative - in democracies the people get the government they choose, for better or worse.
It's up to them to ensure that the institutional circuit breakers that keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches honest are maintained and used, for instance.
If they don't, and the will of the majority drags -all- into an autocratic,self-perpetuating militaristic regime, for instance, its up to -them- to return things to a democratic status quo. Or to acquiese.
Consider the line of discussion here:
**is it unreasonable to reward the Eqyptians efforts at peace and stability in the region, to encourage their peacemaking, when the alternatives are coup-leading megalomaniacs like Quadafi and Hussein?"**
##Why is the alternative to Egypts dictatorship Qaudafi or Hussein? I would think the alternative would be a free and democratic government. ##
**Because those are the choices that existed in the real world."**
## No, I think the choice that existed that the US wanted to avoid is that the people of those countries might elect someone that the US doesn't like. The US has a history of doing that and opposing democracy when they don't like the outcome - Algeria, Chile, Guatemala, and Venezuela are but some examples of that. I have little patience for this way of thinking. If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat.##
As you see, what started out as an inquiry as to why the US taxpayer sends aid to Egypt, after that nation -alone in all the Arab States-and Israel signed the Camp David accords in 1978, devolves into a "the Yankees hate democracy" cant.
Follow the timeline
**********************************
1978 September - Camp David Accords for peace with Israel are signed.
1979 March - The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is signed. Egypt is then condemned by the other Arab nations and excluded from the Arab League.
Sadat assassinated
1981 6 October - Anwar al-Sadat is assassinated by Jihad members
************************************
Which were, which are these "alternative free and democratic" governments in the Middle East that should have been receiving the Aid that went to Egypt, post Camp David?
Rewarding a strongman state whose leader makes an unprecedented, historic reach for peace, cohabitation and stability, an act for which he was murdered ( by-whom?
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wtc...c01/
aljihad.htm
Al-Jihad al-Islami... religious ...fundamentalist..group seeks to establish Islamic rule in Egypt by force and targets any secular establishment that they believe to be heretical, especially secular Arab governments. Al-Jihad al-Islami's primary goal is to "overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state," and to attack "U.S. and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad."[1,2]
Group Leader: unknown; spiritual leader Sheikh Omar Abd al-Rahman, suspected le
**Youd better watch out DBC can make a link between Osama Bin Laden and Kevin Bacon in less than 6 degrees of seperation. **
By-the by:
* Osama Bin Laden interviewed by
Peter Arnett;
* Peter Arnett interviews Fidel
Castro;
* Fidel Castro is host to Leonardo
DiCaprio;
* DiCaprio costars in "This Boy's
Life" with Ellen Barkin;
* Ellen Barkin costars in "Diner"
with...Kevin Bacon.
It's a small world after all...
DBC:
“It's up to them to ensure that the institutional circuit breakers that keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches honest are maintained and used, for instance.”
Circuit breakers, is what you call them? Now let me ask you, in pertinence to Venezuela, there were certain circuit breakers that although in a minority illegally chose to bypass the circuitry. At what point does the electrical engineer of such projects realize that the majority of the population is in support of the existing government? Now I ask this with full 20/20 hindsight of the coup and the subsequent return of the elected official. Now I see a problem however. If the civil engineers fell that the status quo is not to their liking – be it for lack of power, perhaps to their own homes, why should they reroute the circuitry from the many to light the lives of the few?
“If they don't, and the will of the majority drags -all- into an autocratic,self-perpetuating militaristic regime, for instance, its up to -them- to return things to a democratic status quo. Or to acquiese.”
Wait a minute here: Do you mean to say that the will of the many in a democracy is overruled by the subjective nature of the term autocratic? Who decides what is autocratic and what is not? Not the UN would it? Is that left to the whims of a singular nation exercising policing powers for their interests? Hmm is that the result of “walk softly but carry a big stick” nowadays that can be seen as abuse you know – times have changed, if you haven’t noticed. And how do you remediate in your mind the stated goal of the US to bring democracy forth, if in fact democracy when played by the rules does not conform to the standards of the US? IS democracy subjective also? If so then you should have no problem with our interpretation.
“**Because those are the choices that existed in the real world."**”
Interesting and revealing. So in fact it is not democracy that would prevail but whatever the best solution to any particular mind frame that sought control would prevail. Here I thought that democracy was a universal truth. That it was the system of government that made the most sense in any and all occasions such that by being it would resolve whatever matters should present itself despite obstacles placed before it. It is the beacon for which wars are fought the savior for countries who have not had the benefit of experiencing it. Now you tell me that it is not? Despite the fact that the US government seeks to implement it across the world an in particular in Iraq? Im confused DBC do you support President Bush? Do you support the Iraq War? Do you support Democracy? Do you support the legitimacy of the, tested many times over, Democratic state of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? Given you reasoning’s I expect the answers to be yes to ALL of the questions.
DBC:
"It's a small world after all..."
Welcome to Oilwars DBC, now I feel like Im at home. You were one of the few that could make me laugh with sharp wit and a profound sense of humor. In an appreciative sort of way, I thank you. Suffer nonetheless. After the fact but significant still – LOL 100X linking to Kevin Bacon – second only to Pulpot.
**Because those are the choices that existed in the real world.**
Before Hurricane Pulpo finishes making landfall, you'll recall that the quote refers to your host having his nose out of joint over the US aid to Egypt as a means to attempt to support the Camp David accords, and find a peaceable settlement to a conflict that saw multiple wars in the area.
I take it you don't support these efforts, and would be happy to see nuclear-armed Arab states and Israel kick it up a thermonuclear notch?
Chacon a son gout.
**Do you support the legitimacy of the, tested many times over, Democratic state of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela?**
I trust neither the character, honor, intentions, nature nor methods of its leadership, from the bottom up.
I've no reason to suspect that they intend to use democratic means as anything other than a Trojan horse to acquire power, control over the mechanisms of government and over the PDVSA golden goose.
Would we be having this conversation if Arias Cardenas had been elected President, as he was Governor?
Perhaps not - he was a golpista, but more on the pragmatist, policy wonk line.
Too bad for him, he didn't possess the opera buffa qualities of Hugo; this militar alzao had the demagogue appeal that the Miquilena clique thought -they'd- ride to power; if they could have run Franklin Virguez, they would have.
From Feb 4 '92, to yesterday's
"FIdel no viene" lies from Chavez and Propaganda Minster Bizarro, I trust not one thing I hear from
the lips of The Corpulent One. Especially now that he's given, Wacko Jacko style, to wearing red blouses...
Now, I'll remind you, I left Venezuela after the Paleozoic Caldera started suspending constitutional guarantees in his second term, the one he one by jumping on the Golpista bandwagon early, along with Aristobulo. I found CAP insufferable back when he was "Este Hombre Si Camina".
And I find the Venezuelan critique of the Boom years fascinating: it's usually not "Corruption and Graft are unethical", it's "Cisneros and Tinoco and Cecilia Matos get theirs - where's mine? Y Donde estan los reales?" Jealousy and scadenfreude are what pass for ethics in Chavismo.
This is not an improvement of what came before, it's the same old same old.
You don't have "crusading" prosecutors with hundreds of thousands of $-equivalents in cash
lying around their home otherwise.
I'm glad you've found a home more to your liking, but, if I'd wanted to stick around for the bitchy gossipy sniping, I'd have stayed in Venezuela.
I know the experience of being, as a bunch of extranjeros, detained at a military alcabala by a thuggish militar, empowered by his uniform to throw his weight around.
That's who Hugo Chavez is.
When, if, the day comes that Chavismo hands over power peaceably to another elected party, I'll take the legitimacy of this regime at fa
...face value.
But, I suspect "Camarada" Castro will do so before Chavez does.
I trust that answers your question.
Glad you found a new blog home, but if I enjoyed bitchy gossip, character assassination, and chit-chat about who has how much money,
if I missed las malas lenguas, I'd have stayed in Venezuela...
"Which were, which are these "alternative free and democratic" governments in the Middle East that should have been receiving the Aid that went to Egypt, post Camp David?"
Who is asking the US to aid anyone. I am asking them to stop supporting dictators - that is if they really do care about democracy and freedom. So far from your responses you seem to see democracy as something to be disposed of once it no longer servers your purposes. Can't say that is a position I can support. And lucky for the Venezuelan opposition Chavez doesn't think like you.
Just imagine if Chavez said that given the oppositions strong anti-democratic tendencies (such as coups, strikes, etc) he was banning them from future lelections on the grounds that once in they probably wouldn't allow future elections. If he thought like you he'd probably do that. Luckily he's just too much of a democrat to do that. Unlike the opposition types who are oppertunists.
"And I find the Venezuelan critique of the Boom years fascinating: it's usually not "Corruption and Graft are unethical", it's "Cisneros and Tinoco and Cecilia Matos get theirs - where's mine? Y Donde estan los reales?" Jealousy and scadenfreude are what pass for ethics in Chavismo.
This is not an improvement of what came before, it's the same old same old."
Give it up. Just admit that with the money now being distributed across Venezuelan society and not concentrated in the top 20% there isn't enough low lying fruit to keep you here. The escaulidos hate Chavez because he is not corrupt - after fourty years of presidents in their pockets one that doesn't sell is just insufferable. Hence the desperation to get him out.
**So far from your responses you seem to see democracy as something to be disposed of once it no longer servers your purposes...Chavez doesn't think like you**
Yes, that's EXACTLY what a rational person would infer after staring a kerfufle about Why Do The Gringos Give Money to Egypt ( FYI-Because Sadat at least made peace with Israel, the ONLY democracy in the region).
We've seen Hugo cozy up to Saddam Hussein, practically knight Robert Mugabe as the African Bolivar, he's giddy around Fidel Castro---why exactly is Chavismo endorsing these thugs?
I can see the rationale for aiding Egypt after the Arab world shunned Sadat - what's the rationale for Hugo to be playing footsie with these despots?
Oh, right, mention the Mugabazo, and Chavistas suddenly are aloof about foreign affairs.
" The escaulidos hate Chavez because he is not corrupt - after fourty years of presidents in their pockets one that doesn't sell is just insufferable. Hence the desperation to get him out"
Actually, hence the desperation to kiss up to the Chavistas. This is the same Venezuelan dynamic that amounted to what, exactly, from the time of Ojeda and Vespucci to the time of Zumaque? A provincial backwater with a succesion of caudillos, a handful of dynasties, and poor huddled masses?
This wasn't Betancourt's Venezuela, but it is yours. And Hugo's.
Unlike Hugo on A-11, you can't pull a cadena to cover-up the inconvenient truth and rewrite history to your whim.
What was that line from Alo Presidente? "Y quien le dio el Credito?""Usted". "Ah, se lo di yo". Not the State, not the ministry, not the bank. Yo.
“L’État, c’est moi”
Read it, learn it, live it.
Also, please understand that being lucky and "saquando la loteria" in having vast crude deposits under your ass, and having a periodic oil windfall, as Hugo presently enjoys, involves no skill, and trying to fob off good fortune as the product of wisdom and vision is a hard sell. Hurley on "Lost" doesn't pretend to be Akio Morita or Bill Gates, and neither should you Chavistas.
"there isn't enough low lying fruit to keep you here."
Yeah, that's it. Truth be told, I didn't want my kids to grow up in a dysfunctional, unraveling country.
And, thankfully, they won't grow up under the cloud of mesquindez, xenophobia, military machismo and bullshit that is Hugoslavia.
Object lesson? Look at the tone of the anti-caudillo blogs and the reciprocal attitude herein.
Gloves off? If you couldn't make an honest living and are happy now to suck on the teat of toadism and jaletismo, don't try and pass that off as a testament to your character.
The footsoldiers off Chavismo are officious sycophants, and pal, those types are a dime a dozen.
Should I ever again have the displeasure of having you smear me with typical Chavista agitprop and character assassination, just quote
me the immortal line from "The Man
"The Man With Two Brains"
- "Into the mud, scum queen."
"The Man With Two Brains", in addition to starring former Caraquena Kathleen Turner, with be useful to you: he has the one to spare...
DBC:
OW **So far from your responses you seem to see democracy as something to be disposed of once it no longer servers your purposes...Chavez doesn't think like you**
DBC Yes, that's EXACTLY what a rational person would infer after staring a kerfufle about Why Do The Gringos Give Money to Egypt ( FYI-Because Sadat at least made peace with Israel, the ONLY democracy in the region).
Do you realize, DBC that you have just made the most rational justification for Fidel Castro’s Tenure? Under your own criteria it would be equally justifiable to support a democratic state in Pakistan under one ideology as it would to support Cuba in a differing ideology. The mechanism: not allowing a democratic state to flourish because the likelihood of failure would be too great for world stability, can be used by either side in this argument. To date, yours is the strongest show of support for Castro among any of the new or previous bloggers.
DBC:
”Oh, right, mention the Mugabazo, and Chavistas suddenly are aloof about foreign affairs.”
As I mentioned earlier you guys have the ability to look at current situations now – Place blame and fault – and NEVER ONCE acknowledge what has come beforehand that makes the situation prevalent. Why is it that persons who promote the same values as you do seem to be completely devoid of historical perspective? Bad Bad Bad Mugabe, says you: Bad Bad Bad British Colonialism that took away ALL of the land of the indigenous peoples – Named the godamned country after a westerner (Rhodesia) – Leave the country in shambles then - THEN people have the gall to look only at the here and now and place blame on a program that in its conception is meant to relieve the population from previous wrongdoings. Before casting blame – Look back and see where the problems really start and question the British. Draft a policy measure that would address the problems Start a petition demanding reparations from the British! (that’s actually a good one – Ill take credit for that one) C’mon DBC I have an extra pair of sandals I can lend you - lets see you fight for this pet cause of yours.
”I take it you don't support these efforts, and would be happy to see nuclear-armed Arab states and Israel kick it up a thermonuclear notch?”
That’s quite a quagmire DBC – Whats the alternative offer them the democracy that the US cherishes so much – but only if “our guy” wins the elections. No – noone wants to see the proliferation of nuclear arms, but sincere negoatiations with all sides being weighed equally would be a wonderful start. But you bring up a point I metioned earlier but perhaps better spoken about now: You mentioned Khan’s nuclear proliferation bazaar but you acknowledge Israels nuclear capabilities. How did they come across this technology? And they have plenty too check it out:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmd...mdme/
israel.htm
To borrow your line of thinking - Why aren’t you up in arms over Israel having such an arsenal? Do you think Jews are more responsible than Muslims? Here is one for you to google: Kahane chai, Kach – in case you do. Why isn’t anyone demanding that the Israel destroy its arsenal if all things are equal in the region by dint of monies poured in by the US to stabilize.
Me **Do you support the legitimacy of the, tested many times over, Democratic state of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela?**
DBC “I trust neither the character, honor, intentions, nature nor methods of its leadership, from the bottom up. I've no reason to suspect that they intend to use democratic means as anything other than a Trojan horse to acquire power, control over the mechanisms of government and over the PDVSA golden goose.”
You mean like Bush has power over branches of the US governmental system? So what is the surprise that will spring out of the Trojan Horse? Democratic it is in all its legality with the overall purpose of addressing issues concerning the poor which constitute the majority of the population in ways that will help bring about levels of development that are fair and equitable. You should be proud DBC you are witnessing history in the making.
"We've seen Hugo cozy up to Saddam Hussein, practically knight Robert Mugabe as the African Bolivar, he's giddy around Fidel Castro---why exactly is Chavismo endorsing these thugs?
I can see the rationale for aiding Egypt after the Arab world shunned Sadat - what's the rationale for Hugo to be playing footsie with these despots?"
From the above you can conclude one thing - that both Venezuela and the US have lousy foriegn policies that include supporting repressive regimes. That is a fair conclusion. But there are a couple of rather large differences. First, the U.S. gives much more outright aid to prop up these regimes than does Venezuela. Castro, Mugabe, Hussien all existed independently of anything Chavez does. Can you say the same for Egypt and Pakistan - I don't think so. Secondly, and more importantly, it is the U.S. that claims (and you support this claim) that it is invading countries to support democracy. Yet how can that be reconicled with the outright support of repressive regimes. And needless to say Venezuela isn't in this hypocritical position because Venezuela isn't invading anyone.
"Also, please understand that being lucky and "saquando la loteria" in having vast crude deposits under your ass, and having a periodic oil windfall, as Hugo presently enjoys, involves no skill"
Really, then howcome your friends like Guisti couldn't figure it out and saddled Venezuela with $8 oil? Chavez understands a lot more about oil markets than the whole opposition combined and the proof is in the results. Take a look at oil prices since 1999.
"I trust neither the character, honor, intentions, nature nor methods of its leadership, from the bottom up. "
Who you trust is an irrelevancy. The point is Venezuela is one of the freesest and most democratic countries in the world - certianly much better than many of the regimes you appearently support. And you have the Chavistas to thank for that as otherwise you'd have the Carmona dictatorship running the country.
ow- "Why do they give billions of dollars to Egypt and Pakistan which are definitely not democracies?...If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat."
Pulpo " it would be equally justifiable to support a democratic state in Pakistan under one ideology as it would to support Cuba in a differing ideology. The mechanism: not allowing a democratic state to flourish because the likelihood of failure would be too great for world stability, can be used by either side in this argument. To date, yours is the strongest show of support for Castro among any of the new or previous bloggers"
Pulpo, you've outdone yourself - how you can derive your conclusions from OWs starting oints is alien to me. Honestly, I have no idea what your point is. It's like the saying
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". All back to Castro.
You want to draw a geopolitical equivalence between US taxpayer's money given as aid to Egypt and Pakistan to the USSR's patronage of Cuba, fine. You want to make them moral equivalents? You'll never draw me to your cause.
If you're implying a linkage between Musharraf's power grab and US aid, look at the scenario:
"During the 1990s Pakistan's economy suffered on two accounts. One, lack of vision by the civilian ruling elites to make efficient use of public financial resources to boost economic growth, contain poverty, and develop human resources. Two, the inability of these governments (B. Bhutto and N. Sharif) to check unbridled corruption and cronyism. This failure resulted in the political use of public resources, the bending of rules and regulations to benefit a selected few and the erosion of any institutional accountability. Four key economic breakdowns evolved out of this environment: (1) high fiscal deficits; (2) an unsustainable public debt (domestic and foreign); (3) a sharp deterioration in the distribution of income; and (4) a disturbing rise in the level of poverty.
Hmm, sounds like Musharraf took a page from the Arias Cardenas/Chavez playbook
" U.S. aid can make a significant contribution by assisting the Pakistani Government's attack on the root causes of terrorism—those elements that define the diversionary economy and currently suppress economic freedom. In targeting these areas (Figure 2), contributions (dotted lines in Figure 2) toward reducing poverty and the numbers of Islamic militants would occur simultaneously.
Ordinary aid towards institution building, anti-corruption and the like might face strong domestic obstacles. However, in Pakistan's case, the Musharraf anti-corruption and institutional strengthening reforms are already in place and appropriate for the war against terrorism—they simply need to be adequately funded and implemented. As a result, the United States would not be perceived as trying to impose a foreign set of institutions on the country. The overall gui
The overall guideline for allocating assistance should be simple and direct: is this program assisting the country in moving towards a choice based system?
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/f...3/
southAsia.asp
Now, this is a nexus of many thorny issues: Soviet relations with Pakistan, the tensions between India and Pakistan, the Soviet/Indian Socialists closeness, the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan.
Pakistan/US? " the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war...hthe United States suspended military assistance to both countries involved in the conflict, the suspension of aid affected Pakistan much more severely. Gradually, relations improved and arms sales were renewed in 1975. Then, in April 1979, the United States cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, due to concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program.The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, the United States and Pakistan agreed on a $3.2-billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance - in the largest covert operation in history - Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, eventually defeating the Soviets, who withdrew in 1988.
Nuclear Sanctions
Recognizing national security concerns and accepting Pakistan's assurances that it did not intend to construct a nuclear weapon, Congress waived restrictions (Symington Amendment) on military assistance to Pakistan. In March 1986, the two countries agreed on a second multi-year (FY 1988-93) $4-billion economic development and security assistance program. On October 1, 1990, however, the United States suspended all military assistance and new economic aid to Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment, which required that the President certify annually that Pakistan "does not possess a nuclear explosive device." India's decision to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan's matching response set back U.S. relations in the region, which had seen renewed U.S. Government interest during the second Clinton Administration. A presidential visit scheduled for the first quarter of 1998 was postponed and, under the Glenn Amendment, sanctions restricted the provision of credits, military sales, economic assistance, and loans to the government.
The October 1999 overthrow of the democratically elected Sharif government triggered an additional layer of sanctions under Section 508 of the Foreign Appropriations Act which include restrictions on foreign military financing and economic assistance. U.S. Government assistance to Pakistan was limited mainly to refugee and counter-narcotics assistance.
You want to call the US hypocr
You want to call the US hypocritical for partnering with Pakistan post 9-11, so be it. This is a nuclear nation of 160 million,
with 20,000 madrassas, the incubators of islamofascism. Its armed forces and intelligence services are connected in who-knows what manner with the Taliban regime and the Islamofascists.
This is as much a critical, nuclear state for the Islamists as Saudi is.
You and OW want to use use the on-again/off-again US aid to Pakistan as a smokescreen for ---hell, I can't even recall what your point was.
If you're point was that should the Pakistanis freely elect an Al-Quaida, Islamofascist government that the US would be obliged to continue its aid regardless, or is obliged to somehow "support" a democratically-elected tyranny or risk having OW say that they weren't true democrats, pfffftt.
The States owes Iran, which freely(?) elected a man some former hostages recall as being a hostage-taker as president, what manner of
the "support" you speak of?
Pulpo "Look back and see where the problems really start and question the British"
Ah, but say, if, Eamon de Valera,
after Ireland won its independence from the UK, had then started pogroms where he demolished the shacks of the poorest of the poor - who opposed his autocratic style,
his dictatorship- cast them into the street, into the cold, into pens-- well, then that outrage would be all on De Valera's shoulders. His victim's problem would be the dictator, not the British.
His apologist could babble about root causes and colonialism, of course, but that's what you expect from apologists.
So, why do Zimbabwe's neighbors remain silent? Why do the Bono/Geldof
campaign to relieve Africa's misery say nothing?
British reparations?-"Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. In the last two years, we have given $100 million in food aid."
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/outp...ut/
Page4961.asp
"... the UK will also be hosting the next G8 Summit. High on the agenda are proposals to double aid to Africa, from over $72 billion to US$100 billion a year by signing up to an international finance facility (IFF). It is also proposing radical debt cancellation reforms for African countries.
It is also noted with great appreciation that there is a growing movement in the progressive world coming together under the banner, Make Poverty History, calling for unconditional eradication of poverty..
That there is need for a fundamental shift in relations between the EU and its African partners for its emergence chiefly from a donor- recipient relationship to one of equal partners cannot be debated...
it is hoped the UK’s Africa agenda will not be a camouflage to not tackling Zimbabwe directly, including other despotic regimes such as those in Ethiopia, Swaziland, Sudan and Togo.
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/
pages...ll27.12752.html
****
"you acknowledge Israels nuclear capabilities. How did they come across this technology? - Why aren’t you up in arms over Israel having such an arsenal?
Well, gee, Pulpo, I dunno - maybe
Albert Einstein, Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer were covert Mossad agents? Maybe Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg passed some data onto Tel Aviv as well as Moscow?
You tell me - what do YOU think the origins of Israel's nuclear capabilities are?
I don't need to Google (tm) Kach - it's a fringe extremist/settler group that grew out of the killing of Meir Kahane "in New York by an Egyptian Islamist" ---not the last one of those...
"Do you think Jews are more responsible than Muslims?"
Now that's an off question. I do trust the Israeli democracy more than Hussein's Iraq, or Lybia, or Syria, or other autocratic regimes.
Especially after Saddam rained Scuds on Israel.
Who wouldn't?
ow **Really, then howcome your friends like Guisti couldn't figure it out and saddled Venezuela with $8 oil? **
Mmm, and how did "they" "saddle" Venezuela with $8 oil?
ow**Chavez understands a lot more about oil markets than the whole opposition combined and the proof is in the results. Take a look at oil prices since 1999.**
Let's do, before, during, after.
Why did oil prices slump in 81?
Why did Asian economies slump in the late nineties?
"In 1972 the price of crude oil was about $3.00 per barrel and by the end of 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled to over $12.00. The Yom Kippur War started with an attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt on October 5, 1973. The United States and many countries in the western world showed strong support for Israel. As a result of this support several Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the countries supporting Israel. Arab nations curtailed production by 5 million barrels per day (MMBPD) about 1 MMBPD was made up by increased production in other countries. The net loss of 4 MMBPD extended through March of 1974 and represented 7 percent of the free world production. If there was any doubt that the ability to control crude oil prices had passed from the United States to OPEC it was removed during the Arab Oil Embargo. The extreme sensitivity of prices to supply shortages became all too apparent when prices increased 400 percent in six short months. *
Are you going to credit CAP with quadrupling the price of oil during this period, ow?
" Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price increases in 1979 and 1980. The Iranian revolution resulted in the loss of 2 to 2.5 million barrels of oil per day between November, 1978 and June, 1979. At one point production almost halted. Iraq invaded Iran in September, 1980 by November the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day and 6.5 million barrels per day less than a year before. Worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.
The combination of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq/Iran War resulted in crude oil prices more than doubling from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981
Glory, are we to credit Luis Herrera for *this* windfall? The man was a GENIUS!Or was this early leger-de-main by ALi Rodriguez, Herr Mommer, and Hugo?
" During the 1979-1980 period of rapidly increasing prices, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ahmed Yamani repeatedly warned other members of OPEC that high prices would lead to a reduction in demand. His warnings fell on deaf ears...much of the reaction to the oil price increase of the end of the decade was permanent and would not respond to lower prices with increased demand for oil..The price cycle then turned up. The United States economy was strong and the Asian Pacific region was booming. From 1990 to 1997 world oil consumption increased 6.2 million barrels per day. Asian consumption account
accounted for all but 300,000 barrels per day of that gain and contributed to a price recovery that extended into 1997...The rapid growth in Asian economies had come to a halt and in 1998 Asian Pacific oil consumption declined for the first time since 1982. The combination of lower consumption and higher OPEC production sent prices into a downward spiral In response, OPEC cut quotas by 1.25 million b/d in April and 1.335 million in July. Price continued down through December 1998. Prices began to recover in early 1999
****Ah, no doubt simply by Hugo's elction, I take it?****
and OPEC reduced prices another 1.719 million barrels in April 1999. As usual not all of the quotas were observed but between early 1999 and the middle of 1999 OPEC production dropped by about 3 million barrels per day. but was sufficient to move prices above $25 per barrel...In 2001 a weakening US economy and increases in non-OPEC production put downward pressure on prices. In response OPEC once again entered into a series of reductions in member quotas cutting 3.5 million barrels by September 1, 2001. In the absence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack this would have been sufficient to moderate or even reverse the trend. In the wake of the attack the crude oil price plummeted. Spot prices for the U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate were down 35 percent by the middle of November. Under normal circumstances a drop in price of this magnitude would have resulted an another round of quota reductions but given the political climate OPEC delayed additional cuts until January 2002 when it reduced its quota by 1.5 million barrels per day and was joined by several non-OPEC producers including Russia who promised combined production cuts of an additional 462,500 barrels. This had the desired effect with oil prices moving into the $25 range by March, 2002. By mid-year the non-OPEC members were restoring their production cuts but prices continue to rise and U.S. inventories reached a 20-year low later in the year. ...March 19, 2003 military action commenced in Iraq. Meanwhile, inventories remained low in the U.S. and other OECD countries. With an improving economy U.S. demand was increasing and Asian demand for crude oil was growing at a rapid pace. The loss of production capacity in Iraq and Venezuela combined with increased production to meet growing international demand led to the erosion of excess oil production capacity. In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil has been under one million barrels per day. A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer. In a world that consumes over 80 million barrels per day of petroleum products that adds a significant risk pre
premium to crude oil price and is largely responsible for prices in excess of $40 per barrel.
*http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
http://www.wtrg.com/opec.html
So, before you tell me there is a causal link between the "genius" of Hugo Chavez -who's never created a job, or held a job his entire life-
and the present oil market, bring more to the table.
I'd also be more persuaded if everything the Chavistas harangued about against PDVsa - las colitas, la caja negra, el estado dentro del estado- hadn't been revived and magnified under their tenure. Even the production levels the old management proposed, and the Chavistas scorned, seen to be back on the table? How 'bout that?
No, it's easier to slur and engage in character assasination of the "oily" people. Come dicen en La Habana, ve quien llama puta a la juana...
**The point is Venezuela is one of the freesest and most democratic countries in the world **
BWAA-HA-HA---ta bueno eso.
I empathize with Brooke Shields as she's enmeshed in squabble with Tom Cruise over the use of psychiatry, antidepressants, and post-natal depression: her argument is over facts and her experience.
He opponent, however, is motivated by the doctrine and dogma of the cult he's attempting to proselytize to the world. As
Scientolgy is to Cruise, Chavismo is
to you guys. Whatever floats your boat, but not expect to pass off your fevered dreams as fact unchallenged.
Good link DBC. Lots of graphs that prove the point. Throughout the 1990s when Pietri/Guisti pursued their policies of quota busting and maximizing production what happened? Prices were low and trending down. So you invest billions and billions of dollars and get lower revenues and profits (plus they put PDVSA into debt). Isn't that a negative return on capital? Why would you invest billions of dollars only to reduce your revenues and profits? Would GM, or Ford, or Boeing, or IBM do that? I don't think so.
And when Chavez came into power, respected quotas, pushed for more cuts, AND got major non-OPEC producers to at least not fill the void prices rebounded and stayed there. Even when they slackened in 2001 they never approached $8/barrel. The bands that Rodriguez implemented worked. So Chavez gets to take credit for that.
Plus, with less need to invest in a pointless increase of production Venezuela's take increased still more and they didn't need to put PDVSA further into debt as proposed by Guisti.
"OPEC delayed additional cuts until January 2002 when it reduced its quota by 1.5 million barrels per day and was joined by several non-OPEC producers including Russia who promised combined production cuts of an additional 462,500 barrels. This had the desired effect with oil prices moving into the $25 range by March, 2002."
Yeah, even non-Opec members cut back. Pretty unprecendeted. Who do you think got them to do that (hint: initials A.R. and H.C.)
"****Ah, no doubt simply by Hugo's elction, I take it?****"
Definitely a factor. Everyone knew Chavez was going to fire all the people in favor of quota busting and Venezuela would go from a quota buster to a leading proponent of OPEC restricting production to defend prices. And how long did it take Chavez to boot Guisti?
"Mmm, and how did "they" "saddle" Venezuela with $8 oil?"
Simple they made Venezuela the main quota buster in OPEC and increased production by over a million barrels a day - thats not good for prices!
"Are you going to credit CAP with quadrupling the price of oil during this period, ow?"
Primarily no - an Arab oil embargoe is a pretty significant event. Same goes for Herrera with the loss of a lot of Persian Gulf oil.
And the similar event under Chavez is...? There isn't one. The prices have gone up because OPEC has been revitalized and by removing one of the main sources of its previous decline - the quota busting policies of the prior administrations - OPEC can now defend prices. Thats why even when the U.S. went into a recession in 2001 prices didn't crash like they did in 1998 when Guisti was in charge. Look at the graphs - there is a pretty nice correlation between HC being in office and oil prices being higher - and he didn't even need an Arab Oil embargoe to do it!
HC said what he was going to do, he did it, and it worked. Can't beat that.
"You and OW want to use use the on-again/off-again US aid to Pakistan as a smokescreen for ---hell, I can't even recall what your point was."
The originator of this was you were saying the US was in Iraq to promote democracy and I cast doubt on that by saying if it is about democracy why do they support so many other democratic regimes. And the answer we seem to be getting is the US has to pick and chose who it supports based on its interests not based on who is democtratic. Fair answer but then that shoots down your raionale for the Iraq war.
"**The point is Venezuela is one of the freesest and most democratic countries in the world **
BWAA-HA-HA---ta bueno eso."
Yeah, that is about all you can say on that. After all Florida doesn't let in OAS inspectors for its elections.
One of those links didn't Hyper-
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
ow- an Arab oil embargoe is a pretty significant event. Same goes for Herrera with the loss of a lot of Persian Gulf oil. -ow
I see: global factors are useful when you -don't- want to link a profitable oil market to a Venezuelan leader you want to disparage, yet you seek to credit Chavez with a vision that would case George Soros and Warren Buffet to weep, while conveniently discounting such trivialities as the Asian crash of 98, 9/11, and the conflict against the Baathist dictatorship in Iraq.
You left out the bit about how Chavismo engineered the recent economic boom in China and helped parts of India break out of its socialist stupor during the BJP years and see Bangalore drive a thriving economy there, thus accounting for the increased Asian demand for petroleum products.
Or did Hugo and Co. engineer the Asian slump of the late nineties
(checking-starting May 1997) that xontributed to the 1998 price crash?
The oil market is certainly not a specialty of mine, and I can't argue for the reasoning of the PDVSA market share struggle with the Saudis during that period - After 9/11, after Iraq, the petroleum market is high, absolutely.
Is having a reduced market share all around good for Venezuela? It's good enough to supply vast revenue to Chavez, his institutions and his party, in the same way that the Lybian set-up is good for Quadafi?
I suppose it depends on whether your view is that what is good for Hugo is good for Venezuela---and I'm not used to living under caudillismo.
When things trend down, as they always do, and Venezuela faces abother bust, ?
This 2001 paper http://cceia.org/viewMedia.php/p...eID/8/prmID/
155
is one you'll like; it places Hugo as a good OPEC cacique. But still, it's fascinating.
Especially that
" If you think about Venezuela, you have to remember that in the 1950s Venezuela was the largest oil-exporting country in the world. It had the capacity to produce oil of about 5.5 million barrels a day. That's what the United States produces today. Venezuela produced more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. It was the second-largest oil-producing country -- larger than the Soviet Union, and second only to the United States.
Venezuela then saw that capacity of 5.5 million barrels a day -- larger than Iran's or Iraq's capacity today -- slowly disintegrate, so that by 1990, they could barely produce 2.3 million barrels a day.> And they wanted to reverse that...
in the winter of 1997-1998, Saudi Arabia discovered that it was no longer the number-one provider of oil to the United States. Being the number-one supplier of oil to the United States is extremely important to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia... And they were not only not number one, but they were not number two, and at times they were not even number three: they were the number-four supplier of oil to th
the United States -- behind Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada, all Western Hemisphere countries...
The Saudis decided that this will not stay the way...Riyadh first tried reasoning with Caracas. When diplomacy failed, Saudi Arabia raised its production by close to 1 mbd and induced the oil price collapse of 1998. Riyadh's actions were tough but effective. By engineering a price drop, it had to withstand a painful drop in income -- but it achieved its main goals. Saudi Arabia reasserted its OPEC leadership, reestablished itself as the prime supplier of oil to the United States, and induced non-OPEC producers Mexico and Norway to support OPEC's revenue-maximizing goals...
Upon Chávez's arrival on the Venezuelan political scene, a truce was declared in the battle for market share in the U.S. market. I will note that, like all such things, they bear the seeds of their own destruction, because the real loser in all of that was Venezuela itself. Venezuela, at the time it had begun these discussions leading up to the first agreements, was embarked on a path of increased market share. I told you that they had the capacity to produce oil of 2.3 million barrels a day in 1990. By 1998, this at had increased to 3.5 million barrels a day -- and they were hell-bent on reaching 5.5 million barrels a day in a couple years' time, and they surely would have achieved that goal.
Now what has happened as a result of lower income and a new regime is that capital has dried up and Venezuela's production capacity has already slipped from 3.5 million barrels a day to once again under 3 million barrels a day. They -- not permanently, but for a long time -- lost that battle with Saudi Arabia.
***
** you were saying the US was in Iraq to promote democracy **
No, I believe Pulpo was asking
"are you one of the believers, that although Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with harboring terrorists nor involved in anything remotely related to 9/11, still insists that the removing of Hussein was just under the premise of fighting terrorism? If so Id like you to site samples of Iraqi aggression towards mainland US such as to warrant the US to nix the UN, and shame the honorable Colin Powell into lying to the security council, to achieve a goal that is/was completely unrelated to the happenings of 9/11 whose base of operation was known to be in Afghanistan with support from the Taliban gov. An intelligent person WILL make the distinction – An intelligent person WILL ALSO hide that knowledge. You seem to be intelligent I trust that you will be forthcoming on these queries.**
My reply was about "Iraqi Baathism setting the ball in motion with its invasion of Kuwait, setting the stage for an American military presence in the Arabian land sacred to Muslims...one of the things that the attacks on NY and DC was to "avenge"" --- this in realtion to your praise of the Iraqi insurgents.
Did the US choose to enforce UN resolutions before the French/Russian/German bloc succeeded in lifting sanctions and re-empowering Saddam? Absolutely?
Do you think eradicating the Baathist dictatorship and allowing a Middle Eastern democracy other than Israel to form was self-serving? Your call.
Do I buy your thesis that, unless the US is prepared to "support" a democratically-elected regime whose stated goal is the destruction o fthe US and the West, it isn't a "true democrat"?
Does the fact that the US worked with Pakistan at a time when both had common interest in holding back Soviet imperialistic expansion
preclude it speaking on the global stage?
That'd suit your agenda.
Weigh that against the wave of freedom and liberty that came out of the US's stance in the Cold War - the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Spring of Nations from Poland to the Check Republic to Hungary to the Baltics. To Ukraine.( By the by, who was it that was endorsing the result of that blatantly stolen elections?
Invisible ink elections? Why, noted liberty lover and democrat Hugo Chavez! Viva the Orange Revolution, Hugo!! )
Yeah, I think on the whole the US can live wih itself. I think it was on the right side during the Cold War, and that hundreds of millions are better today for it. Including all the Euroweenies that despise the US.
Do I think the neocons were on the right side in acting to remove Baathism and try to foster a democracy? I wouldn't bet against it.
Yur repsonse?" cast doubt on that by saying if it is about democracy why do they support so many other democratic regimes." --- I still have to ask, regarding the Undemocratic regimes that the US has worked with, --
--what were the alternatives at the time? Is Musharraf a lesser evil than a Taliban-led Pakistan? Yes. Would the US be required to "support" a democratically elected Taliban-led Pakistan. Nope. Would India? You tell me...
Man, back in 89, when that wall fell, who would have thunk that we'd have had Saddam Hussein start invasions and warfare all over again?
Saddam invades Iraq, Chavez tries to depose an elected President---the thugs just kept coming...
DBC:
“Pulpo, you've outdone yourself - how you can derive your conclusions from OWs starting oints is alien to me.”
Im only using your criteria, that which subjectively defines what is a good state Vs. a bad state and putting a different perspective on the matter. As OW has already explained, this has nothing to do with monies given to governments to keep the peace. Israel and Egypt have nothing to do with this particular discussion . This has to do specifically with your statements over preferring to forego democracy on certain occasions in favor of autocratic states, when the out come of democracy is not favorable to those in power. This may involve a giant leap for you, but try to step outside of your two right footed penny loafers and understand how your argument can and has been implemented using the very same criteria you propose. You “should” find that under this premise a reasonable person can take that very criteria and apply it to Cuba circa 1961 to present. If for some reason you do not come to this conclusion, I suggest a refresher course in elementary philosophy. Im sure you’ve heard the phrase “whats good for the goose is good for the gander” if you haven’t its just like that saying you folks with the Pavo and Pava.
Im starting to lend credence to the thought that you are some sort of history teacher at a university. A dreadful thought if you ask me the rubbish you must be infusing into those hapless youngsters. But that is merely speculation. Anonymity has its place I suppose for not just you.
Zimbabwe:
“Ah, but say, if, Eamon de Valera, after Ireland won its independence from the UK”
I don’t know who de Valera is/was nor do I care to know at this time. What is of importance is that you judge the actions of the current government NOW for actions taken when the cause of the problem resides in the colonial past. Don’t worry, this is true in LatAm. and specifically true in Venezuela with a Gini income disparity among the highest in the world. To what is due the similarities? The answer is the effects of colonialism! You can brush aside as much as you want and judge the here and now, but recorded history will not forget. True to both, colonialists took over the best lands, divided and conquered the people, and put in place institutions of segregation that hold true to this day. This cannot be denied, by you or anyone. So you and many others want to capitalize on the ignorance of others, and point fingers at what may seem like some sort of violation of private property. Oh but you neglect history – that which Joe Average has no clue about and ive seen him, ive witnessed him, ive known him, and he/she boggles my mind every time at their sheer ignorance. What of the property of those who had the SAME LANDS before it was brutally taken from its residents during colonial conquests. Does the historical clock stop at colonialism, and pick up again when everything is good and dandy for the eyes and ears of the western world? No sir it does not, and if the current day sees in power a representative of those who have categorically been driven from their lands, then just dues are proper AND ill state that in comparison to what is reported now by way of biased media pales in comparison to the massacres of years past where media was non existent in the way we think of it today. My hope is that Zimbabwe can adopt a true Venezuelan type of democratic government and make things right because as a model of representation it alone shines brighter than any star imaginable.
Do me a favor and read my post at:
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/
2005...ctionaries.html
Regarding Zimbabwe. It will do you wonders I hope.
“So, why do Zimbabwe's neighbors remain silent? Why do the Bono/Geldof
campaign to relieve Africa's misery say nothing?”
Maybe because they are not the ignorant type and have a knack for historical references? Just a guess.
“ British reparations?-"Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. In the last two years, we have given $100 million in food aid." "... the UK will also be hosting the next G8 Summit. High on the agenda are proposals to double aid to Africa, from over $72 billion to US$100 billion a year by signing up to an international finance facility (IFF). It is also proposing radical debt cancellation reforms for African countries.
In over 150 years of suffering directly the effects of colonization and still suffering its effects taking into account the resources taken from the land, do you think that $100 Billion will suffice? Lets get real here you joker (pulpo shows restraint – not for lack of better words) you know as well as I do that wont cover but a portion of the damage done. Note the difference between Zim and Ven and SEE the where the same course of action is undertaken in a responsible manner instead of criticizing and admonishing those who recognize where progress is being made. You should be so lucky to recognize the difference, but for your ignorance.
What matters is not what you're market share is but how much money you are making. 7 years ago Venezulea might have had a lot more market share but it was making a lot LESS money. You have to remember oil is a commodity. Saudi oil and Venezulean oil don't compete for sales - they all sell in a single market in a price deteremined by the world wide supply and demand for oil. Thats why rather than competing the countries of OPEC formed a cartel to work together to increase prices. Yes, there are problems with cartels and there are always incentives to cheat. But they do work and that is what we have seen over the past 6 years.
Again, when CAP was president about 20 or 30% of the worlds exported oil went off the market. What has happened recently is in no way shape or form of a comparable magnitude. And you keep bringing up the Asian recession of 98 as if that was what was responsible for prices tanking. Yet the U.S. (a much bigger consumer) had a recession in 2001) and prices DIDN'T tank. Thank you HUGO
El Pulpo **Israel and Egypt have nothing to do with this particular discussion**
Please, Pulpo, have the courtesy not to try and tell me the OWL wasn't squealing about why the US supported Egypt long ago in this thread.
"your statements over preferring to forego democracy on certain occasions in favor of autocratic states"
Please quote me where I said that. You well know I was referring to our host's statement that If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat.
Rather than devolve into some Clintonian "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" boondoggle over what he or she means by "support", I'm simply trying to establish the point that a democrat's
commitment is to the process, not the outcome. Because I guarantee you, if Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood to power and AL Zawahiri to office, and US aid to a fascist anti-American state was ended, "ow" would be telling us that the US is a poor democratic sort.
If you want to stretch that into me vetting the removal of Castro in favor of a dictatorship circa 1961,
well, I've not seen such contorsions since the latest Fantastic Four trailer.
Eamon De Valera http://
www.irelandinformationgui...Eamon_de_Valera
was the first leader of the Irish state as it emerged from several hundred years of British
colonialism, hence the direct comparison to Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
Now, De Valera did not raze through shantytowns of people who opposed his regime; Many Zimbabweans resent Mugabe's iron fist, corruption, and ruthlessnes, that he's driven the economy to ruin and the people to hunger.
SO if you're going to sing the Socialist International to me, rant about Cecil Rhodes, all the while turning a blind eye to ROBERT MUGABE's abuses- his outrageous attacks on the poorest of the poor, "Operation Murambatsvina, which means "Drive out Rubbish" ... "to weed out hideouts of crime and grime, filthy stalls..."Their crocodile tears will not deter us from carrying out necessary action to rid ourselves of malpractises that have caused hardships to our people through illegal trade in essential commodities like sugar, soap, mealie-meal, fuel, foreign currency and clothing."...you're not making any case at all.
De Valera managed to somehow take his nation out from colonialism without such attrocities, so I find the lamentations for Mugabe to be cynical and baseless.
**My hope is that Zimbabwe can adopt a true Venezuelan type of democratic government**
I rather think that the two regimes are already very much alike.
You suggested a campaign for British reparations ( and French, and German, and Belgian, one guesses), no? Don't yell at me because all that's flowed to Africa ( and flowed back to Geneva), all that wll flow, isn't enough.
At some point you have to hold the rotten, miserable leadership responsible for their abject failure
failures. But as long as Africa will remain silent in the face of its Robert Mugabes, as long as self-serving leftists will do the same,
you'll be riding this hobbyhorse for another century.
** “So, why do Zimbabwe's neighbors remain silent? Why do the Bono/Geldof
campaign to relieve Africa's misery say nothing?”**
**Maybe because they are not the ignorant type and have a knack for historical references? Just a guess. **
Maybe the ones are complicit, and the others are afraid of being accused of being neo-colonialist, politically incorrect racists? Another guess.
**If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat**
Before I forget, again, what are we then to make of Hugo Chavez's support for the false results of the egregiously tainted, unfree elections that the Russians tried to palm off on the Ukranians and the world, ensuring that their puppet would remain in power, keeping that nation in the Russian spehere of influence, whether they wanted to or not?
What's Hugo CHavez doing on the wrong side of the Orange Revolution?
I've already said Hugo is on the wrong side of this in a number of cases. He welcomes Castro even though Cuba has never had a free election under him. So this is an area where I disagree with Chavez. His foriegn policy sucks in a number of ways.
But at least Venezuela doesn't go around imposing this dictatorial governments on others as some other countries do.
"Because I guarantee you, if Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood to power and AL Zawahiri to office, and US aid to a fascist anti-American state was ended, "ow" would be telling us that the US is a poor democratic sort."
No, the US doesn't have to aid anyone if it doesn't want to. They need to stop proping up these regimes by providing them with billions of aid and techinical support in creating police states.
** What matters is not what you're market share is but how much money you are making **
I'll play along - why then would the Saudi's take a short-term hit in order to *protect* their US market share?
"Saudi oil and Venezulean oil don't compete for sales"
They pool their income and distribute it amongst themselves in a predetermined fashion, I suppose, like a commune, then?
"During the first ten months of 2004, Saudi Arabia exported 1.55 million bbl/d of oil (of which 1.49 million bbl/d was crude) to the United States. For this time period, Saudi Arabia ranked third (after Canada and Mexico, and just ahead of Venezuela) as a source of total (crude plus refined products) U.S. oil imports, and third for crude only. Saudi Arabia is eager to maintain and even expand its market share in the United States for a variety of economic and strategic reasons
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs...cabs/
saudi.html
. By the winter of 1996-97, Caracas was producing 3 mbd, knocking Saudi Arabia from its position as number one supplier to the United States. In response, Riyadh first tried reasoning with Caracas. When diplomacy failed, Saudi Arabia raised its production by close to 1 mbd and induced the oil price collapse of 1998. Riyadh's actions were tough but effective. By engineering a price drop, it had to withstand a painful drop in income -- but it achieved its main goals. Saudi Arabia reasserted its OPEC leadership, reestablished itself as the prime supplier of oil to the United States, and induced non-OPEC producers Mexico and Norway to support OPEC's revenue-maximizing goals.
You find the Saudi's less astute than Hugo, I take it?
"And you keep bringing up the Asian recession of 98 as if that was what was responsible for prices tanking."
" From 1990 to 1997 world oil consumption increased 6.2 million barrels per day. Asian consumption accounted for all but 300,000 barrels per day of that gain and contributed to a price recovery that extended into 1997.
The price increases came to a rapid end when the impact of the economic crisis in Asia was either ignored or severely underestimated by OPEC. In December, 1997 OPEC increased its quota by 2.5 million barrels per day (10 percent) to 27.5 MMBPD effective January 1, 1998. The rapid growth in Asian economies had come to a halt and in 1998 Asian Pacific oil consumption declined for the first time since 1982
**Yet the U.S. (a much bigger consumer) had a recession in 2001) and prices DIDN'T tank. Thank you HUGO **
It was the Asian boom that accounted for the increase in consumption in the Nineties, though, not the US economy.
Look at the graph you liked yesterday: Prices plummeted after Sept. 11, and OPEC decided to cut back production in January 2002.
What happened in the interim?
Late Sept/ Oct -The Taliban and Bin Laden called for Jihad against America ;
Oct. 19 - US begins ground asault against Taliban
Oct. 19 - US begins ground asault against Taliban
January 2002 - The Taliban capitulates.
So, from what I can see, it was the allied action, the win against the Taliban that rallied the world economy and gave OPEC the confidence to defend its prices after the plunge.
Oh, and see, there's another correlation between prices spiking and "Asian demand soaring" - I think you have another "Thank You L. RON HU---imean, HUGO!" due...
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/
c...lprice01_05.gif
DBC: "your statements over preferring to forego democracy on certain occasions in favor of autocratic states"
Please quote me where I said that.. You well know I was referring to our host's statement that If you don't support free elections irrespective of who wins then you are no democrat.
--------------------------------------
DBC: If you're point was that should the Pakistanis freely elect an Al-Quaida, Islamofascist government that the US would be obliged to continue its aid regardless, or is obliged to somehow "support" a democratically-elected tyranny or risk having OW say that they weren't true democrats, pfffftt.
DBC: Is aiding a Musharraf-led, nuclear Pakistan better than aiding an Islamofascist, nuclear Pakistan?
DBC: I suppose you'd like to see the US depose Musharraf and restore the Bhutto corruptocracy, the equivalent of the Adecos/oligarchs that you despise in Venezuela? Yeah, politics make for strange bedfellows
DBC: Because those are the choices that existed in the real world.
To Which OW: The originator of this was you were saying the US was in Iraq to promote democracy and I cast doubt on that by saying if it is about democracy why do they support so many other democratic regimes. And the answer we seem to be getting is the US has to pick and chose who it supports based on its interests not based on who is democtratic. Fair answer but then that shoots down your raionale for the Iraq war.
DBC: Do I buy your thesis that, unless the US is prepared to "support" a democratically-elected regime whose stated goal is the destruction o fthe US and the West, it isn't a "true democrat"?
Does the fact that the US worked with Pakistan at a time when both had common interest in holding back Soviet imperialistic expansion
preclude it speaking on the global stage?
Hidden in your question responses to our questions is your guilt. Fidel thanks you.
DBC:
Read what you quote. The answer to your question is right here:
"By the winter of 1996-97, Caracas was producing 3 mbd, knocking Saudi Arabia from its position as number one supplier to the United States. In response, Riyadh first tried reasoning with Caracas. When diplomacy failed, Saudi Arabia raised its production by close to 1 mbd and induced the oil price collapse of 1998. Riyadh's actions were tough but effective. By engineering a price drop, it had to withstand a painful drop in income -- but it achieved its main goals. Saudi Arabia reasserted its OPEC leadership, reestablished itself as the prime supplier of oil to the United States, and induced non-OPEC producers Mexico and Norway to support OPEC's revenue-maximizing goals."
Venezuela back then were quota busters who were screwing everyone (including there own country) by maximizing production. So the Saudis gave them a taste of their own medicine. And it worked. Those pricks got thrown out on their butts by Chavez and the rest is history - now people are interested in "revenue-maximizing goals" as they should be.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
