"Meteorite Debris" <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb7adfb7f0bae03989ec8@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:32:02 GMT the ET form known as
Fester<not@home.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse of
deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
"Meteorite Debris" <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb782619b7c3081989ec6@news.optusnet.com.au...
On 18 Sep 2004 06:31:42 -0700 the ET form known as
Dave<galt_57@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Won't every surrounding country (except Turkey, the only democracy)
be
motivated to do everything they can to make Iraqi democracy a
failure?
These governments are despotic and certainly not keen on anything
promoting ideas of reform. They are also uniformly resentful of
Western influences. Also isn't democracy considered to be
incompatible
with fundamentalist Islam?
What sort of democracy? One imposed from outside is not going to be a
democracy of any meaningful type. The invasion was never mounted to
bring democracy to Iraq. This is clear by the activity of the
occupiers after the overthrow of Saddam. First the Antiquities Museum
was looted. It had no security. But the Oil Ministry building had
tight security and was not touched. Then the public utilities were
sold off without any say from the Iraqis at firesale prices to the
mates of George Bush without a tender process. Except for the National
Oil Company which no doubt will be broken up and sold off cheaply
later to the same suspects. After that came the "reconstruction" money
for which the mates of Bush have received money but have not done
anything with such money. As I said this is not any meaningful type of
democracy.
Given the above is it any surprise that Iraqis, even those who opposed
Saddam, are not be too enthusiastic about the marvelous gift of
"democracy" we are given them. Your whole paragraph assumes that the
business in Iraq is a project to bring democracy to Iraq. It is not.
It is a project to grab control of what will be, in a very few years,
a shrinking supply of oil and to make it possible for the USA to turn
on and off the economies of any nations dependent on middle east oil.
To allow the USA to grow its' oil consumption, and therefore its'
economy, as others go without. It is the neocon agenda.
When I was a kid, I remember watching cartoons called, "Fracture Fairy
Tales." For those who aren't familiar with them, the idea was that to
provide a humorous distortion of famous tales such as, "The Tortoise and
the
Hare," etc. The moral of the story was always some pun, bearing no
resemblemce to what the original had to say.
Reading your "history" brings "Fractured Fairy Tales" to mind.
Consider,
first, the looting of the antiquities in Iraq. At the time, it seemed a
spontaneous act of the mob. We learned soon afterwards, however, that
this
was not the action of an undirected group of opportunists. This was an
action that was premeditated and carried out by Baathists. You try to
present the security of Iraq's oil assets as a self-serving effort of
the US
to gain control of the wells. Did you ever consider that they are the
heart
of Iraq's economy, and therefore necessary to any Iraqi government that
would replace Saddam? We didn't secure the oil so that we could steal
it,
we secured it because it was necessary to the hope of a free Iraq. More
important by far than the museum pieces (most of which have been
restored,
BTW).
Talk about a fantasy. We are not there to free the Iraqis. The
priorities are reflected in what was closely guarded and what was not.
Incidentally you reveal rather more about yourself then perhaps you
realise when you talk about how important museum pieces are. But you
are right. The oil is more important than the museum pieces for the
thieves. And why were the public assets flogged so cheaply without the
consent of the Iraqis? And without a public tender. And to Bush's
mates. Talk about "Fractured Fairy Tales".
Sorry, but as a matter of fact wee are there to free the Iraqis. No, it
wasn't the end goal, but a step toward achieving our ends. The ulitimate
objective, of course, being to end organized world-wdie Islamic terrorsm.
You see Saddam was a sponsor of terrorists. He was also thought to possess
chem and bio weapon stockpiles, and their means of production (that he
didn't possess stockpiles has yet to be proven, but we do know that he had
facilities for the production). He was required to verify that he destroyed
such materials and refused to comply. As for oil theft, you need look no
further than saddam himself to find the criminal. Well he and Annan and
Chirac and Putin and Deng. These are the principals in a massive rip-off of
the Iraqi people, the profits going to buy more weapons and weapon
technology. Removing Saddam and replacing him with a Democratic government
is a key objective to winning our war.
You need to know some history of the middle east. Most of the
boundaries in the region were drawn up after the collapse of the
Ottoman empire after WW1. Turkey had links with Germany leading up to
WW1. German engineers building a railway to Baghdad had noticed oil
seepages in some of areas being surveyed for the line.
An Armenian living in Istanbul by the name of Calouste Gulbenkian, son
of a businessman who made a fortune from importing Russian Kerosene,
started putting together a consortium to explore for oil with himself
having a 15% stake, latter reduced to 5%. There was a delay for a
while when Turkey decided to ethically cleanse Armenians and
Gulbenkian had to take refuge in Egypt until that passed. The
consortium included BP, Shell, Esso, Mobil, CFP(Total) and Deutsche
Bank. After the war the German bank was of course squeezed out. The
Arabs were doubled crossed and were denied the homeland promised to
them if they assisted the allies in ousting the Turks. Lawrence of
Arabia, who was immensely respected by the Arabs, being an
archaeologist in the area, speaking their language and wearing their
clothes, was used to double cross the hapless Arabs. Britain and
France divided up the the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire for
themselves and Iraq was one of the creations.
It took years for the British to pacify the Iraqis. Winston Churchill
authorised the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians. With
such resistance oil exploration was delayed. But in 1927 success with
the oil gusher at Kirkuk. The British placed some lackey on a
"throne", called him King and preceded to run the Middle East with the
French until WW2. The King was overthrown by Bathists after the war.
Now the Middle East was run by America. The Middle East was called
"the greatest material prize in history" by the US State Department.
More Fractured Fairy Tales, I see. Here's a more accurate account of
the
history of Brittish involvement (Don't worry, if you missed the part
about
Churchill being a double-crossing oil thief, it's because it's really
only
happened in the Fractured Fairy Tale):
I did not say anything about Churchill being a double-crossing oil
thief. I said he authorised the use of chemical weapons on Iraqi
civilians.
So who was the "double-crosser you were referring to when you said:
"Lawrence of Arabia, who was immensely respected by the Arabs, being an
archaeologist in the area, speaking their language and wearing their
clothes, was used to double cross the hapless Arabs."
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html
The merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into one
political entity and the creation of a nation out of the diverse
religious
and ethnic elements inhabiting these lands was accomplished after World
War
I. Action undertaken by the British military authorities during the war
and
the upsurge of nationalism after the war helped determine the shape of
the
new Iraqi state and the course of events during the postwar years, until
Iraq finally emerged as an independent political entity in 1932.
All this was not what the Arabs were promised.
And what *was* promised and to whom?
British control of Iraq, however, was short-lived. After the war,
Britain
debated both its general policy in Iraq and the specific type of
administration to establish. Two schools of thought influenced
policymakers
in London. The first, advocated by the Colonial Office, stressed a
policy of
direct control to protect British interests in the Persian Gulf and
India.
Assessing British policy from India, this school may be called the
Indian
school of thought. The other school, hoping to conciliate Arab
nationalists,
advised indirect control. In Iraq itself, British authorities were
divided
on the issue. Some, under the influence of Sir Arnold Wilson, the acting
civil commissioner, advocated direct control; others, alarmed by growing
dissatisfaction with the British administration, advised indirect
control
and suggested the establishment of an indigenous regime under British
supervision. Britain was still undecided on which policy it should
follow in
1920 when events in other Arab countries radically changed conditions in
Iraq. Early in 1920 the emir Faysal I, son of the sharif Husayn, who had
led
the Arab Revolt in 1916, established an Arab government in Damascus and
was
proclaimed king of Syria. Meanwhile, a group of Iraqi nationalists met
in
Damascus to proclaim the emir 'Abd Allah, older brother of Faysal, as
king
of Iraq. Under the influence of those nationalists a revolt started in
the
town of Rumaitha in the middle Euphrates.The national agitation followed
that revolt into the tribal areas of the middle Euphrates and in
northern
Iraq . By the summer of 1920 the revolt had spread to all parts of the
country except the big cities of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, where
British
forces were stationed.
In July 1920, Faysal came into conflict with the French authorities over
control of Syria. France had been given the mandate over Syria and
Lebanon
in April and was determined to obtain Faysal's acceptance of the
mandate.
Nationalists urged Faysal to reject the French demands, and conflict
ensued
between him and the French, resulting in his expulsion from Syria.
Faysal
went to London to complain about the French action.
Although the revolt in Iraq was suppressed by force, it prompted Iraq
and
Great Britain to reconcile their differences. In Britain a segment of
public
opinion wanted to "get out of Mesopotamia" and urged relief from further
commitments. In Iraq the nationalists were demanding independence. In
1921
Britain offered the Iraqi throne to Faysal along with the establishment
of
an Arab government under British mandate. Faysal wanted the throne if it
were offered to him by the Iraqi people. He also suggested the
replacement
of the mandate by a treaty of alliance. These proposals were accepted by
the
British government, and Winston Churchill, then colonial secretary,
promised
to carry them out. He was advised by T.E. Lawrence, known for his
sympathy
for the Arabs.
In March 1921 a conference presided over by Churchill was held in Cairo
to
settle Middle Eastern affairs. Faysal was nominated to the Iraqi throne
with
the provision that a plebiscite be held to confirm the nomination. Sir
Percy
Cox, recently appointed a high commissioner for Iraq, was responsible
for
carrying out the plebiscite. A provisional government set up by Cox
shortly
before the Cairo Conference passed a resolution on July 11, 1921,
declaring
Faysal king of Iraq, provided that his "Government shall be
constitutional,
representative and democratic." The plebiscite confirmed this
proclamation,
and Faysal was formally crowned king on Aug. 23, 1921.
The establishment of the monarchy was the first step in the
establishment of
a national regime. Two other steps followed immediately: the signing of
a
treaty of alliance with Great Britain and the drafting of a
constitution. It
was deemed necessary that a treaty should precede the constitution and
define relations between Iraq and Britain. The treaty was signed on Oct.
10,
1922. Without direct reference, it reproduced most of the provisions of
the
mandate. Iraq undertook to respect religious freedom and missionary
enterprises and the rights of foreigners, to treat all states equally,
and
to cooperate with the League of Nations. Britain was obligated to offer
advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and
financial matters (defined in separate and subsidiary agreements).
Although
the terms of the treaty were open to periodic revision, they were to
last 20
years. In the meantime, Britain agreed to prepare Iraq for membership in
the
League of Nations "as soon as possible."
It soon became apparent that the substance, though not the form, of the
mandate was still in existence and that complete independence had not
been
achieved. Strong opposition to the treaty in the press made it almost
certain it would not be ratified by the Constituent Assembly. Nor was
British public opinion satisfied with the commitments to Iraq. During
the
general elections of 1922 there was a newspaper campaign against British
expenditures in Iraq. In deference to public opinion in both Britain and
Iraq, a protocol to the treaty was signed on April 30, 1923, reducing
the
period of the treaty from 20 to 4 years. Despite the shortening of
British
tutelage, the Constituent Assembly demanded complete independence when
the
treaty was put before it for approval. Ratification of the treaty was
accomplished on June 11, 1924, after Britain's warning that nonapproval
would lead to the referral of the matter to the League of Nations.
The Constituent Assembly then considered a draft constitution drawn up
by a
constitutional committee. The committee tried to give extensive powers
to
the king. Discussion on the draft constitution by the Constituent
Assembly
lasted a month, and, after minor modifications, it was adopted in July
1924.
The Organic Law, as the constitution was called, went into effect right
after it was signed by the king on March 21, 1925. It provided for a
constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary government, and a bicameral
legislature. The latter was composed of an elected House of
Representatives
and an appointed Senate. The lower house was to be elected every four
years
in a free manhood suffrage. The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten
general
elections were held before the downfall of the monarchy in 1958. The
more
than 50 Cabinets formed during the same period reflected the instability
of
the system.
From the establishment of a national government, there was keen interest
in
organizing political parties. Three parties organized in 1921, one by
the
group in power and two by opposition parties, had similar social and
economic views and essentially the same political objective: termination
of
the mandate and the winning of independence. They differed, however, on
the
means of achieving the objective. After the achievement of independence
in
1932, these parties dissolved, because their raison d'êatre had
disappeared.
It was only when social issues were discussed that new political
groupings,
even if not formally organized as political parties, began to emerge.
The
power struggle among these groups became exceedingly intense after World
War
II.
The Iraqi nationalists, though appreciating the free expression of
opinion
permitted under a parliamentary system, were far from satisfied with the
mandate. They demanded independence as a matter of right, as promised in
war
declarations and treaties, rather than as a matter of capacity for
self-government as laid down in the mandate. Various attempts were made
to
redefine Anglo-Iraqi relations, as embodied in the 1926 and 1927
treaties,
without fundamentally altering Britain's responsibility. The British
treaties were viewed by the nationalists not only as an impediment to
the
realization of Iraq's nationalist aspirations but also as inimical to
the
economic development of the country. The nationalists viewed the
situation
as a "perplexing predicament" (al-watha' al-shadh)--a term that became
popular in Parliament and in the press. It referred to the impossibility
of
government by the dual authority of the mandate. The nationalists argued
that there were two governments in Iraq, one foreign and the other
national,
and that such a regime was an abnormality that, though feasible in
theory,
was unworkable in practice.
In 1929 Britain decided to end this stalemate and reconcile its
interests
with Iraq's national aspirations. It notified Iraq that the mandate
would be
terminated in 1932 and a new treaty of independence negotiated. A new
government was formed, headed by General Nuri as-Sa'id, who helped in
achieving Iraq's independence.
The new treaty was signed on June 30, 1930. It provided for the
establishment of a "close alliance" between Britain and Iraq with "full
and
frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which
may
affect their common interests." Iraq would maintain internal order and
defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain.
This is your classic protectorate. We will protect you against
ourselves. Like a protection racket.
Any dispute
between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be
discussed
with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant
of
the League of Nations. In the event of an imminent threat of war, the
two
parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the
maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in
the
interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were
therefore
granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates, but these forces "shall
not
constitute in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice the
sovereign rights of Iraq." This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to come
into
effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq
was
admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state.
I really see nothing in the above that conflicts with Arabs being used
in WW1 and spat out, cast aside afterwards with the understanding that
the trusted Lawrence had arrived at.
I see. So mutual benefit such as that described by this excerpt was not
possible:
" Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British
communications was in the interest of both parties."
The CIA latter put Saddam in charge of Iraq. After the Iranian
revolution Saddam worried about Shiite influence attacked Iran with
support of the USA who wanted to contain Iran. Saddam was a "moderate"
against the mad Ayatollahs in Tehran. More than a million died and
US corporations got rich and drunk on the flowing blood. US arms had
to be paid for and Kuwait loaned the money figuring their interests
were with Sunni Arabs against Shiites. After the war Saddam was rather
slow in paying back his loans. Kuwait decided to drill horizontally
into Iraqi oil fields to recoup what was owing in kind. Saddam then
went on a war path. The US indicated that a Kuwaiti "border" incident
started by Iraq would not be noticed as long as it did not include
invasion. Saddam disobeyed and we all know history from that time on.
Here we have a nother pantload. MD would have us believe that US
incited
and sponsored the Iraq-Iran war so that "US corporations could get rich
and
drunk on the flowing blood." The truth is that Iran was under the
Soviet
sphere of influence and we wanted to counter them, so we sided with
Iraq.
Was this policy wise? In hindsight, one would have to say no. But, we
were
fully committed to the cold war idea of containing communism on a
world-wide
basis and the Iran-Iraq front was another theater of Cold War rivalry.
Iran under Soviet sphere of influence. Who are you kidding. Iran was
an ISLAMIC republic under the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs pretty
quickly despatched the commies who had hitched a ride on board the
ISLAMIC revolution. Repeat, Iran under the Ayatollahs was NOT, repeat,
was NOT under the Soviet sphere of influence. In fact the Soviet Union
was nervous about having such radical Islam at its' back door. Events
in recent years show why they were.
Following the overthrow of the Shah, and the Ayatolloh's capture of the US
embassy, they incurred the wrath, naturally enough of the US. They needed
arms, and turned to the USSR and China to acquire them. They also
benefitted from Soviet military advisors deployed to the region.
I did not say the US incited the war but that the US supported Iraq
because Iran was the enemy. You are misrepresenting what I said. But
US corporations did get rich out of it. The "democrat", that
"moderate", that "nice guy", the "reasonable man" and all sorts of
adjectives that Washington described Saddam as, had to be supplied.
Yes US corporations got wonderfully rich as the blood flowed in
rivers. You may not like the idea of US corporations having blood
stained bank notes but it does not change anything just because the
way you want to think about America conflicts with reality.
OK, so some US companies made money by selling arms.
This is nothing new. The magnificent swimming pools that the
responsible CEOs no doubt have are filled with the blood of the third
world.
And how about the daschas of the Soviet leaders? Were they also not paid
for through arms sales? Should we have refused to sell arms to aour allies
when their enemies have access to buy them from our enemies?
He then tells us that Kuwait engaged in horizontal drilling to recoup
the
costs of a bad loan. In fact, Saddam *claimed* that the Kuwatis were
doing
so to justify both default of his debt to Kuwait and his subsequent war
of
conquest.
I think you have something very confused here.
So Dave your analysis is too simplistic. It is not just resentment.
There is resentment but there is a history behind that resentment. Is
Islam compatible with democracy? Certainly not with extreme forms but
history shows that doctrine is twisted to mean something else whenever
expedient. But I think that democracy has not been compatible with
superpower politics as it has been played out in the region. This
continues today. What bullets hit is not the extremism although
thousands of extremists have been killed. What is left standing in an
area cleared out by bullets and bombs is hard core extremism. All
greys are polarised into black and white, zeros and ones, good and
evil. But you know that the bullets in Iraq are also clear felling
grey areas in the USA itself. The new era of geopolitics is now
starting to have the same effect of polarising all politics into black
and white, for us/against us, good and evil, on the home front as it
has traditionally done in the field of the "great game".
So MD your analysis could have been composed by Dan Rather. That is to
say,
incorporating most of the important facts, but omitting thos that are
inconvenient to your conclusions. It confuses fact with opinion and
fills
in the gaps with speculation to advance a self-serving end. In short,
your
"history" is the work of a dishonest mind.
I think you have some inaccuracies in your understanding. I think you
are so wrapped up in your idea of America always being benevolent that
you can not see the wood for the trees. I think you are naive and
gullable.
I am saying that our motives through the Cold War era were benign. Those
being to counter the threat of Communism and despotism. I am saying that
our motives in the present era are benign as well. That being to end
world-wide Islamic terrorism. Have we made mistakes diuring both? Of
course. Can the history of US international involvement be boiled down to
ruthless pursuit of profits, as you would like us to believe? Absolutely,
positively, definitely *not*.
.
