When Clinton was in office, I believed that the Republicans and conservatives who were crowing about the low moral of the war fighters, "because of Bill Clinton", was taking things too far. In the case of Clinton, it was another case of the "opposition" going too far.
Now, we have this statement by Rep. John Murtha:
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.
I thought in the past, and I think now, that the enemies of the U.S. read and view our news media. Statements like that quoted, does nothing but give strength to our enemies as well has hurt the moral of our war fighters.
Murtha should know better.
Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest. This is primarily because of Iran’s reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars.
Remember Dr. Sonja Ebron's prescient and profoundly insightful 2.5 year old article On Why African Americans Should Oppose the War in the Black Commentator. This article is suitable for framing and gifting to republicans formerly known as black.
Disregard any specious Iranian WMD hype, cause just like with Wargate now unfolding in Phase II in the Senate, with blinders removed, the deja vous all over again is confounding.., don't these neocons have any other plays in their playbook?
The contention that this could unseat the dollar’s dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America’s current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB).
The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran’s Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.
Geographically Iran is ideally located as it is in close proximity to major oil importers such as China, Europe and India.
It is unlikely, in the short term at least, that large numbers of energy traders will decamp and set up shop in Iran; a country which happens to be categorized as a member of the ‘axis of evil’ by the president of the world’s largest oil importing country; the United States.
But over time Iran could take some business away from the two incumbent energy exchanges, the International Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange whom both invoice sales solely in dollars.
Economic Motives
If successful the IOB will provide Iran with concrete economic benefits especially if it invoices at least some of its energy contracts in euros.
Iran has around 126bn barrels of proven oil reserves about 10 percent of the world's total, and has the world’s second largest proven natural gas reserves.
From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45 percent of its total trade. More than a third of Iran’s oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent.
The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker, which in turn would enable GCC nations to sell some of their oil for euros. The bourse should lead to greater levels of Foreign Direct Investment in Iran’s hydrocarbon sector and if it facilitates futures trading it will give regional investors an alternative to investing in their somewhat overvalued stock markets.
Euro zone countries alone account for almost a third of Iran’s imports and currently Iran must exchange dollars earned from hydrocarbon exports into euros which involves exchange rate risk and transaction costs.
The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 – some 26 percent to date – has substantially reduced Iran’s purchasing power against its main importing partner.
If the decline continues more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-à-vis the dollar they hold in reserve and in turn this will increase calls both in Iran and the GCC to invoice at least some of their oil exports in euros. A move away from the dollar and a strengthening of the euro would further benefit Iran as according to a member of Iran’s Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour, more than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund are now euros.
It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world’s largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy.
Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition US energy related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.
Political Considerations
In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that OPEC oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard.
Since then consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and Treasury Bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year’s US current account deficit was $646bn.
Needless to say the current petrodollar system greatly benefits the US; it enables it to effectively control the world oil-market as the dollar has become the fiat currency for international trade.
In terms of its own oil imports, the US. can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills.
George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has argued that Iran’s decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilize other actors against the US." This viewpoint however, ignores Iran’s economic motives, just because the decision, if eventually taken, displeases the US does not mean that the rationale is purely political.
In light of such sentiments and the US’s current insistence that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council Iran must consider and weigh carefully the economic benefits against the potential political costs.
Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran’s threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq.
In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros, its ‘Oil For Food’ account at the UN was also transferred into euros and later it converted its US$10bn UN held reserve fund into euros.
At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised and saw it as nothing more than a political statement, which in essence it may have been, but the euro has gained roughly 17 percent over the dollar between then and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the US led occupation of Iraq its oil sales are once again being invoiced in dollars.
The best policy choice for Iran would be to proceed with the IOB as planned as the economic advantages of such a bourse are clear, but in order to mitigate against the potentially greater political ‘threat’ should provide customers with flexibility.
It would make it much harder for America to object to the new bourse, overtly or covertly, if Iran allows customers to decide for themselves which currency to use when purchasing oil, such an approach would facilitate for euro purchases with out explicitly ruling out the dollar.
[Emilie Rutledge is a British economist who is currently based at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai].
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
Aljazeera
By Emilie Rutledge
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm
Good Morning Iran. You're the next contestant in the American geo-political game of gettin' dumasses in the heartland to hate the enemy of the month. The first salvo - you're a nation of drug addicts!! Said the cocaine dealer to the opium smoker.
More plot thickening from the Sunday Binnis Post online...,
On July 14 in the western city of Maracaibo, Venezuelan government tax auditors and a prosecutor went to the offices of Chevron, the second-largest US oil company.They seized boxes of records to build a case that San Ramon, California-based Chevron and 21 other energy companies owe Venezuela €2.4 billion in back taxes.
Chavez, who refers to US president George Bush as ‘Mr Danger', said on June 5 that the US was trying to install a global dictatorship. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice described Chavez as a “negative force'‘ in the region.
just goes to show, you gotta let a ho be a ho...,
On July 14 in the western city of Maracaibo, Venezuelan government tax auditors and a prosecutor went to the offices of Chevron, the second-largest US oil company.
They seized boxes of records to build a case that San Ramon, California-based Chevron and 21 other energy companies owe Venezuela €2.4 billion in back taxes.
The raid is part of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's push to squeeze more money out of foreign companies that want to pump oil from the world's fifth-largest petroleum exporter.
Since last October, he has raised heavy-oil royalty fees to as much as 30 per cent from 1 per cent, begun paying for some services in nonconvertible bolivares instead of US dollars, and ordered oil well contracts converted into government-controlled joint ventures.
Chavez wants to use the revenue to pay for homes, clinics and schools for the 58 per cent of Venezuelan families who live on less than $200 a month.
Since taking office in February 1999, Chavez has embarked on a socialist revolution, seizing ranches to hand over to the poor and starting a TV news network with promotional ads featuring a swastika painted on a US flag.
Chavez says he's using oil money to bankroll a quest to become Latin America's leader against US-style capitalism.
In a May 4 speech, he said: “Being rich is bad'‘ and “Jesus Christ was a socialist'‘.
Chavez, a close friend of Cuban president Fidel Castro, sends crude oil to Cuba in exchange for doctors to staff 3,000 neighbourhood clinics.
In June, he pledged subsidised oil for poor Caribbean nations, such as Grenada.
But Chevron and its competitors haven't been scared off, because Venezuela has the largest reserves in the western hemisphere. The oil companies want to invest $30 billion in Venezuela, which is the fourth-largest supplier of crude to the US, according to the Venezuelan Hydrocarbons Association.
Chavez says all companies are welcome in his country.
“Foreign companies have been here for the last century exploiting oil and gas, and they'll have all the space they've been able to have so far,” he says.
“It's just that they will have to pay the royalties, they will have to pay the income tax. If they don't, we will go after them.”
Venezuela's tax agency stated on August 11 that it was seeking to attach more than 280 billion bolivares (€106million) in assets from Royal Dutch Shell in a dispute over what the country says is unpaid back taxes.
The prize in Venezuela is the tropical flatlands north of the Orinoco river, beneath which, according to Chavez, lie 230 billion barrels of heavy crude, one of the largest oil deposits in the world.
Chavez, who has used his clout as leader of the third-largest member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) to curb Venezuela's output by 20 per cent since taking office, now says he wants to boost production.
Most of the decline came from the state-owned producer, Petroleos de Venezuela, where Chavez fired half the workforce to break a 2002-2003 strike aimed at ousting him. Daily output at PDVSA has tumbled to about 2million barrels from 2.92 million barrels in 1998.
Foreign oil companies took up the slack, doubling their production to about 1.12 million barrels a day last year.
Now, Chavez says he wants to attract €8 billion more from foreign oil companies to help boost Venezuela's total oil production to 5 million barrels a day by 2009.
“This government is your ally,” Chavez told foreign oil executives in March. “We are not chasing anyone away from Venezuela.”
At the same time, Chavez claimed that the Bush administration was trying to force him to commit suicide and he threatened that exports to the US would be cut off if he were to meet an untimely death.
Chavez, who refers to US president George Bush as ‘Mr Danger', said on June 5 that the US was trying to install a global dictatorship. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice described Chavez as a “negative force'‘ in the region.
Last Monday, television evangelist Pat Robertson told viewers of his 700 Club TV programme that the US should assassinate Chavez to stop him from becoming a “launching pad for communists'‘.
Venezuelan vice president Jose Vicente Rangel responded by saying Robertson's remarks were “criminal'‘. US state department spokesman Sean McCormack said at a press briefing that Robertson's views did not “represent the policy of the United States'‘.
Unless new reserves are tapped in countries like Venezuela in the next 15 years, global oil output won't keep pace with demand, according to a report by New York securities firm Sanford C Bernstein.
The report forecasts that demand for oil will grow by 1.8 per cent a year until 2020 to 102.7 million barrels a day.
Global oil production capacity will be 102.1 million barrels a day, the report says.
Concern about future supply has helped to push crude oil prices up more than fivefold to a record $67.10 a barrel on August 12 from $12.28 on February 2, 1999, when Chavez was sworn in as president.
Venezuela is one of the few major oil producers that allow foreign investment. Saudi Arabia allows only its state oil company to pump crude.
And Venezuela has been more open than other countries in Latin America such as Mexico, which bars foreign companies from exploiting the second-biggest oil reserves in Latin America.
Oil companies such as Shell have acquiesced to Chavez's demands. On July 14, the government ordered Shell, whose 90 years of working in Venezuela includes having its wells nationalised in 1975, to pay $131 million of back taxes.
Shell says it has paid all of its taxes.
Norway's state-run Statoil, Paris-based Total and Chevron have been hardest hit by Chavez's new rules, because they manage wells for PDVSA and are shareholders in the four heavy-crude production ventures in the Orinoco belt.
Statoil, Total and Conoco-Phillips may have to pay €260 million in back taxes for their heavy-oil ventures in the Orinoco belt, according to oil minister Ramirez.
Chavez is also considering a reduction in Venezuela's dependence on oil sales to the US, which accounts for about 60 per cent of the nation's crude exports. He signed agreements to boost oil sales to Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Paraguay and Uruguay.
He also proposed building a pipeline to Pacific Oceanports in Colombia to ship more crude to China.
The US imports 15 per cent of its crude oil from Venezuela, which is just a four to five-day tanker trip from Texas refineries.
Oil is a pervasive part of life in Venezuela, where petrol stations don't even post the price, because it is fixed at 18 cents per gallon. Revenue from crude exports funds half the government's budget, and oil prices have driven Venezuela's economy since the 1920s.
Last year, as crude prices soared again, Venezuela's economy grew a record 17 per cent.
In 1998 Chavez won a landslide election victory by pledging a revolution that would use oil revenue to spread equality. Since taking office, he has taken advantage of surging oil prices by boosting spending on programmes for the poor to a projected €10.6 billion this year - almost half the national budget. This has helped him to survive an attempted coup and recall referendum.
PDVSA dispenses €3.2 billion a year for everything from cooperatives that make the red T-shirts Chavez supporters wear to monthly stipends for 700,000 people enrolled on adult education courses.
On some days, PDVSA's 13-floor concrete headquarters in Caracas draws scores of people seeking funds for social programmes, known as missions.
“For a long time, our oil went to the rich, but as you can see, here that's changed,” says Wuikelman Angel, 35, who manages workshops, a youth centre and a clinic that PDVSA built last year on a three-hectare shuttered gasoline depot in Caracas's Catia slum.
On one morning in late June, about 50 people wait at the €5.7 million complex, flanked by a verdant hill covered with tin-roofed shacks and piles of garbage, for free treatment at a two-storey clinic with a new X-ray machine and a pediatric ward.
In a warehouse across a rose-lined square, a dozen people make final adjustments to machinery at a shoemaking cooperative, one of thousands of government-financed companies that are part of Chavez's plan to give jobs to the poor.
It's all financed by PDVSA, starting with the cooperative's first order for 250 pairs of black leather shoes, which were donated to victims of a mudslide.
Across the road is a government supermarket that sells food at a 33 per cent discount - one of 12,000 built with PDVSA funds since Chavez took power.
In addition to the PDVSA money, Chavez is using €4.8 billion of the country's €23.5 billion of central bank reserves for government spending.
Chavez is stepping up social spending to build support for a re-election bid in December 2006. His approval rating was 61 per cent in the second quarter - that's down eight percentage points from the start of the year.
Despite demands for more taxes, Chevron and Repsol plan to expand in the Orinoco area, which would involve drilling as many as 2,000 wells that use steam to force tar-like crude oil out of the ground.
The Orinoco Belt, with as many as 300 billion barrels of oil, may be a critical area for Chevron to add reserves.
Chevron and Repsol hope to negotiate an agreement that will allow them to use their expertise to run the wells, pipelines and refineries planned for the Orinoco.
If Venezuela is seeking to expand production, there is no doubt that the Orinoco is the area to develop.
28 August 2005 By Michael Smith and Peter Wilson
The following two stories appeared in The Washington Post. Both were above the fold.
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official SaysBy Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
Then, there was this one:
Iraqi Sunnis Battle To Defend Shiites Tribes Defy an Attempt by Zarqawi To Drive Residents From Western CityBy Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01BAGHDAD, Aug. 14 -- Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers.
Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi's guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said.
The contrast is left up to the reader to think about. This one makes me laugh, sigh, and wonder what's going on in the administration.
Not much seems to be said about Prince Bandar resigning.
Veteran Saudi ambassador in U.S. resigns
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, July 20 (UPI) -- Saudi King Fahd accepted the resignation of Saudi ambassador in Washington Prince Bandar bin Abdul Aziz who served in the post for more than 20 years.
Related Headlines
Saudi U.S. ambassador said to resign (June 26, 2005) -- Prince Bandar bin Sultan has reportedly resigned as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States. Senior U.S. and Saudi officials, as well as ... > full story
King Fahd not suffering dangerous illness (June 23, 2005) -- Saudi King Fahd, who has been hospitalized for four weeks, is not suffering from any dangerous illness, an official said Thursday. Deputy Defense ... > full story
Saudi king's health improves (June 18, 2005) -- King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz's health is improving and he should leave the hospital soon, a top Saudi official said Saturday. Foreign Minister ... > full story
Saudi king health reports conflict (May 29, 2005) -- The conflicting reports about the health of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd has put some in the kingdom on edge, but there is no question of ... > full story
Saudi king stable in ICU (May 29, 2005) -- Saudi sources close to the ruling family said Sunday King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz' condition is improving although he remains in intensive care. A ... > full story
An official source at the foreign ministry said Wednesday Bandar expressed his wish to be relieved from his responsibilities earlier this month.
"After all these long years of devoted service as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, which exceeded 20 years, Prince Bandar solicited King Fahd to be released from his post for personal reasons," the source said.
He said the king appointed Prince Turki al-Faisal, the current ambassador to Britain, to replace Bandar.
The source did not say what prompted Bandar to resign.
It had been previously reported that there is tension between Prince Bandar and many of the House of Saud's leaders.
Given the massive amount of wealth Prince Bandar has accumulated because of his position, and the amount of power and access he had, it surprises me that he has resigned.
Given that he is strongly westernized, while the Saud family leaders seem to be embracing radical Islam, I don't think this bodes well at all.
PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?
When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
This is a quickie, hopefully I can sum it up nicely.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), introduced H.R. 2592.
To designate Haiti under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to render nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status under such section.
What does this have to do with the war on terrorism?
Well, for those who read the right papers, you may have read that Islam is spreading in the Caribbean. There is a fear that it is the extremist form that is spreading. With one of the London bombers seemingly coming from Jamaica, the spread of Islam, or at least the extremist form, should be watched in the Caribbean.
But that's still not providing the link, so let me get to it.
Drugs are run through the Caribbean and make their way to the U.S. The U.S. seemed to have helped the coup in Haiti. So, they got rid of someone who was not clean, but it was replaced by a group of people who are drug runners.
The drug runners are now working with terrorists to smuggle drugs and "human cargo" into the U.S. Haiti is a country of interest because of the poverty and because of the political situation in the country.
Yet, H.R. 2592 won't make it. It is because of race? I think so. But before you think it's the "racist Republicans", please remember that Clinton change the Haitian policy even though he had a chance to do so.
So, what does this have to do with the war on terrorism?
If the belief that poverty is one of the reasons why the extremist form of Islam is able to take hold, then isn't Haiti a prime candidate? It's in worse shape than Jamaica.
Something doesn't make sense:
Rice offers rare praise for Syria
WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered rare praise for Syria Tuesday for battling militants trying to slip over its border into Iraq but said more such action was necessary.
Syrian forces captured two "terrorists" Monday in a dawn clash with extremists who included former bodyguards of Saddam Hussein, official media in Damascus had reported.
The gunbattle on Mount Qassioun overlooking the Syrian capital was the second such firefight with extremists in recent days and comes amid intense US pressure on Syria to stop militants slipping over its border into Iraq.
OK, then we have this:
Iran, Iraq to OK Military Pact, Including Troop Training Help
From Reuters
TEHRAN — Former foes Iran and Iraq said Thursday that they would sign a military cooperation agreement that would include Iranian help in training Iraq's armed forces, despite likely U.S. opposition.
The agreement marks a breakthrough in relations between the two countries, which fought a bitter 1980-88 war. And it comes in spite of repeated U.S. accusations that Shiite Muslim Iran has undermined security in Iraq since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.
...
Asked about possible U.S. opposition, Shamkhani said, "No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement."
OK, we have Rice praising Syria when people are saying Syria not only hosts the terrorists, but may be helping fund some of their efforts?
Then we have Iraq making a pact with Iran, who is said to be helping fund the terrorists who are using the Syrian border to come in and attack the people of Iraq?
P6 gets a hat tip.
Live 8 was an ego trip of musicians that will mean nothing.
Leaders of the G8 countries don't give a damn to what the musicians have to say.
Smartly, it wasn't a fund raising effort that would be wasted on corrupt leaders. The musicians get some free publicity, but what happens in the end?
Not a damn thing.
Shut your pie hole, you're lucky you got out.
From the mouths of folks who had no business being where they were...as if this matters any...didn't keep the US from gettin' kushy with my man Menachim...terror-schmerror...all depends on who ya kill...
From Nat Hentoff
I partially understand why President Bush, clearly a man of decent instincts, is no longer publicly, passionately condemning the Khartoum government. Sudan's intelligence agents have been providing the CIA with valuable information on terrorists in Muslim countries.
Moreover, they have actually gone after Al Qaeda suspects and turned them over to us.
This alliance with mass murderers and rapists is the very definition of realpolitik, but at what price? Not only with regard to the world's definition of the United States, but also to our definition of ourselves? As Leonard Rubenstein of Physicians for Human Rights asks: "How many people will have to die before we do enough in Darfur?"
Salih Booker, executive director of the Washington-based Africa Action, says: "The President of the U.S. has recognized that genocide is occurring, but apparently there are more pressing matters requiring his attention. We must ask, what could possibly be more pressing than genocide? Unless there is an immediate international intervention in Darfur, up to a million people may be dead by the end of this year."
I was putzing around on the web. Cranking out some 2000 words/day is no joke. Then taking care of the kids?
Anyway i come across an interview with Seymour Hersh. He uncovered My Lai. He dropped something that I wish I could get some type of confirmation on:
In any case, you know, it's -- in this case, these -- a group of soldiers in 1968 went into a village. They had been in Vietnam for three months and lost about 10% of their people, maybe 10 or 15 to accidents, killings and bombings, and they ended up -- they thought they would meet the enemy and there were 550 women, children and old men and they executed them all. It took a day. They stopped in the middle and they had lunch. One of the kids who had done a lot of shooting. The Black and Hispanic soldiers, about 40 of them, there were about 90 men in the unit -- the Blacks and Hispanics shot in the air. They wouldn't shoot into the ditch. They collected people in three ditches and just began to shoot them. The Blacks and Hispanics shot up in the air, but the mostly White, lower middle class, the kids who join the Army Reserve today and National Guard looking for extra dollars, those kind of kids did the killing.
Now I'm going to assume he's on the money. Given the types of travails these particular groups of soldiers had gone through at home, I'm betting that killing an entire village of women and children was a bit too much to stomach.
His thoughts on the government are insightful as well. Democracy really is a tenuous thing when you think about it. All you need is a few folks to fall down on the job, to be less willing to hold someone accountable, to be less willing to be transparent, and we're in trouble. Where Hersh is helpful--probably more helpful than he knows--is that he actually understands how long it normally takes to turn the tide. The critique against Vietnam didn't begin in earnest until years after the war. We've got a different beast going on here, but I think as casualties mount (and here I'm not talking about deaths. Cobb is right, those numbers are too small. I'm talking about deaths and wounded.) we're going to see a growing willingness to question Bush. Hopefully that will lead to regime change.
What is there to not like about today's voting by Iraqis?
Anyone who says different is suspect.
We have mistakenly acted as though terrorism was a thing or a group against which one can fight. But terrorism is merely a tactic that can be used by anyone. Ancient Britons used it against the Romans, the Zionists against the British, the Algerians against the French, the French against the Nazis, the Chechens against the Russians, the Basques against the Spaniards, and so on. It is the traditional “weapon of the weak,” who resort to it when all else fails.
William R. Polk pens a devastating assessment of the current administration's dunderheaded misadventures in Iraq in the current edition of the American Conservative. With avoidable mismanagement of this magnitude, one is compelled to wonder whether the overall geopolitical objective was strategic control of the oil or intentional degradation of the U.S.?
Earlier this year the question came up about fast-tracking the citizenship papers of immigrants on green cards or student visas who decide to join the armed forces. I stood behind the effort and still do. What I didn't realize at the time that this particular deal has been seen before. Apparently Werner Von Braun wasn't the only immigrant to come over here in support of our war effort.
I imagine that there are a significant number of German Jews and others who managed to get over here in time to turn against their own former taskmasters with the appropriate vengeance, and American combat gear. I wonder if there are any bloggers who might admit that their parents were such individuals. I haven't looke for, or presumed anything about a Jewish angle on support for the war in Iraq, but I think somebody has an honest opinion about such matters out there.
Consdering how many people flee oppression to find a new home in the US, I suspect that this route to citizenship will be an important avenue for generations to come.
Cobb notes Dr. Rice's impressive resume and slyly critiques those who would mock her as a parrot.
I disagree strongly with both of my Vision Circle colleagues here. Dr. Rice does have an impressive resume--but so does every other person privileged to serve as the Secretary of State. You aren't going to find many people who cut their chops at McDonalds. The critiques of her are on point and she should be pilloried.
However there is a trick bag that we can't get out of. That Rice can't get out of.
Plainly put, she's black.
What this means is that every single editorial cartoon she appears in is going to look like a racist lampoon.
And that every attempt to praise/condemn her is going to fall victim to one of two stereotypes:
1. The Superwoman stereotype--look at this strong black woman who can do everything AND lift weights too!
2. The Black Aid stereotype--made famous by Thomas Jefferson's behind the back comments about Benjamin Banneker. Everything black people do cannot possibly be a product of their own agency--particularly if they go against the black grain. She's GOT to be somebody's agent.
Hell. I think Rice has a smile that lights up the room. But I think she's going to be the worst Secretary of State the modern world has seen. Her work up to this point engenders the very opposite of trust in me.
This is easy enough to say here. But how do you convey this in an editorial cartoon without playing into the long history of racial stereotypes? I don't know.
I'm going to write this again. I believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saadam started paying the families of terrorists who blew themselves up in Israel. The U.S. invaded Iraq to support Israel. I have no problem with invading Iraq for that reason. I do have a problem with Bush not telling the people of the U.S. the truth.
Then, for some insane reason, the military took it easy on the opposition in Fallujah. But now, after the election, the military is allowed to do what it is supposed to do: kill people and destroy sh*t.
What is happening in Fallujah now is something that should have happened some time ago. Farting around in Iraq has cost American and Iraqi lives.
It is clear that a number of people actually believe in the rhetoric that accompanied the war. But as I ask time and time again for a single hypotheses that was proferred by the administration before the war and PROVEN after the war, I'm met with blank stares. This is troubling to me, because it indicates a type of fervor that cannot be disproven--which places it in the same category as religion. Some of the assertions/hypotheses:
*Saddam had nuclear weapons almost ready
*We would be greeted as liberators
*Victory would be swift
*The total cost shouldn't come even close to 50 billion
*We're going to be in and out
*Democracy should be straightforward to install
*Terrorism will decrease
*THe number of terrorists RECRUITED will decrease
OK, this one really gets me.
The terrorists are more likely cheering for Kerry to win!
Folks, if the translation of bin Laden rantings is correct, he's trying to get the world into a fight. He's trying to pit his version of Islam against the U.S. and her allies. He wants to rid the world of the "U.S. perversion of world culture".
Well, if that is what bin Laden wants, hasn't he essentially received his wish?
Further more, if Kerry wins and the U.S. pulls out, then again he wins because he wanted the U.S. out of the region. The terrorists who are in Iraq would be able to declare victory.
So, if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't matter. Bin Laden will get his way either way.
Maybe this entry should be titled Responding to Fear Mongering.
Rumsfeld Says He Was Misunderstood on Iraq-Al Qaeda
Tue Oct 5, 2004 05:54 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
Flip flop?
The crux of the matter:
In 2002, only six undergraduates in the entire United States earned degrees in Arabic language.
As a result over 100,000 hours of "terrorist related" tapes from the Arab world have yet to be translated. I've already noted that the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq don't speak the language. How can we possibly be viewed as anything other than occupiers if we don't even know how to say "freedom" in Arabic? This astounds me.
60K to go to hurricane relief
Haiti is a national interest for U.S. because of drug running. Yet, the U.S. supports a new Haiti government which has strong drug ties and human rights violations.
The Bahamas used to be the rum running spot. Later, it was drug running, using the same rum running paths and hideouts. Because of anti-drug efforts, the U.S. helped out the Bahamas. The U.S. still helps out that country. Now, The Bahamas is off-shore financial haven.
The U.S. pressured Caribbean countries to not let Aristide into their country after he fled the coup. There is good reason to question the U.S.'s hand in what happened. The Caribbean countries basically told the U.S. no.
Now, during this crisis, the U.S. gives Haiti $60K in relief funds. Is this payback?
$60K?
Damn.
Let's be real for one moment during this silly season.
The U.S.'s war on terrorism is a sham.
For years people along the southern border have dealt with drug and human smugglers. Unknown to most people in the U.S., some land owners along the southern border have had gun fights with drug and human smugglers.
If human smugglers are trafficing workers and sex workers, what makes anyone think they aren't trafficing terrorists?
What about the "Shoe Bomber"? Do we want to remember him? Do we care to think that the only reason that airplane wasn't blown out of the sky is because his shoes were wet?
talking to a friend on the conspiratorial tip the other day, he noted some things about the berg video that intrigued me...but not enough that i'm interested in looking at it myself. so for those who have looked at it:
1. is it true that one of the murderers wears a gold ring on his left hand?
2. is it true that no blood appears (or very little) during the beheading?
3. is it true that there is a skip in the video?
if even the first question is true then this raises flags (and again shows how much we don't know about Islam and Arab culture in general). Because historically the left hand was used to wipe one's self NOTHING adorns it. This is why in many cultures (including some African American subcultures) it is a sign of disrespect to shake hands with the left. Even if fundamentalist Islam promotes wearing jewelry (I'm not sure it does) there's no way in hell it'd be worn on the left hand.
So I'm at a friend's 50th birthday party, and I meet some of her partner's former students. One of them just got back from Iraq. Because he was just a hair away from having his truck repossessed, Iraq was the best thing that happened to him. But it becomes very clear talking to him that even if we believe in empire, believe that democracy can be imposed from without, there's no way in hell we can win there.
Arabic is one of the hardest languages to learn from an American standpoint. Just making the psychological shift to reading and writing right to left has to be difficult. As a result I'd gather that of the infantry responsible for much of the peacekeeping activities, less than 10% are proficient in Arabic. Of the psyops unit the kid I talked to was with, I got the sense that it was more like 5% tops.
Layer on top of that the fact that many of these kids were trained to wage war, not make peace (Rep. Kucninich has been proposing a Department of Peace for a while now...it sounds kitschy, but I'll be damned if something like that isn't needed here). So in an extremely short period of time, soldiers who've been trained and brainwashed (make no mistake, amping someone up to become a stone cold killer requires brainwashing) to view these folks as the enemy are now required to smile and wave upon every encounter.
It's clear that the segue from soldier to policeman can be a straightforward one. But being familiar with the history of relationships between police and African Americans, I can say that I'm not particularly surprised that more sophisticated versions of Detroit circa 1967 are occurring on a frequent basis.
In order to prevent another maafa, Rwandans are attempting to get rid of ethnicity. Here's a snippet, because registration may be required:
This country, where ethnic tensions were whipped up into a frenzy of killing, is now trying to make ethnicity a thing of the past. There are no Hutu in the new Rwanda. There are no Tutsi either. The government, dominated by the minority Tutsi, has wiped out the distinctions by decree.The re-education camp is one way of driving the point home to people who once lived by the motto "Hutu power." As Hutu fighters who fled to Congo after 1994 return to Rwanda they are sent to the camp. Along with civics they are taught some hands-on skills like carpentry. They leave with $75 and, at least in theory, a whole new way of thinking.
That new thinking has its critics those who say that denying that ethnicity exists merely suppresses the painful ethnic dialogue that Rwanda requires.
Haven't we heard this refrain before?
Recently Baldilocks argued that while white supremacy in the South was pernicious, the actions of Islamic terrorists is a while nother bag. In response I asked a few questions.
First things first.
When engaged in dialogue about white supremacy in the South, it's crucial that we understand what terror really looked like. When we think about Jim Crow, we usually think about separate facilities right? Separate bathrooms, separate restaurants, separate drinking faucets, separate schools. But imagine if you will a people without protection of the law. Imagine over 200 years of mob rule.
Take a look at the link above. Carefully. See the smiling faces of children? The proud faces of the men? Note also that these activities didn't take place in the dead of night, but rather in the middle of the day. While I don't believe in the Apocrypha about the term picnic, I can understand why some people do.
Now how in the hell could people actually get away with this? How could they go to sleep at night? How could they stay sane? Two words: Judeo-Christian ethic.
What Juliette is arguing is that there are no textual references in Islam that could create an Islamic version of Martin Luther King jr., like there are in Christianity. She is also arguing for a "pure" Christianity that was somehow tainted by racists who used it wrongly. To this I say two things:
1. What do you get when you run a search for "peace" in the Qu'ran?
2. If Christianity was used "wrongly" why did it take 335 years before it was used correctly?
The first question is important because Juliette is making an assumption that the text of the Qu'ran is geared towards violence and war. Passages on concepts like "peace" in comparison should be either difficult to find or narrowly tailored.
The second question is important because Juliette assumes that through a combination of time, and powerful words convincing people to act right, white Americans got their act together. If such a reading is correct, then it still begs the question of why it took so long for this to happen.
Second take onIslam and terrorism. Islam is approximately 1572 years old, dating from what I believe is the time of Muhammad's death. How old is what we think of as terrorism? Does it date back to the forties? To the twenties? For Juliette to make the argument that Islam is almost "naturally" a war prone religion, this question is important isn't it? If the first terrorist act were committed YESTERDAY for example, we wouldn't be accurate in calling Islam "warlike"...just as if Muslims engaged in mass lynchings for 1500 years straight we wouldn't necessarily be right in calling it
"peaceful."
When I first heard about Aristide's claims, I was listening to Diane Rehm. She was talking about the coup, and about how the US whisked Aristide away saving his life in the process. Two callers noted that both Tavis Smiley and Democracy Now had noted that Randall Robinson and Maxine Waters spoke with Aristide, who claimed that he'd been kidnapped rather than saved. When Diane asked her panelists to comment, someone noted that it sounded preposterous and that he had no reason to believe that Colin Powell had misspoken.
Something about that was really unsettling for me. Of course Powell's word has been turned to mush as a result of Iraq and WMD, but that wasn't it. I couldn't figure it out until it hit me this week.
Venezuela.
Anyone remember the coup in Venezuela? Condoleezza Rice held a press conference on the coup, noting that they would work with the new regime to ensure that the promise of democracy--which was taken away by Chavez--was restored. One slight problem. Two actually.
Chavez was democratically elected and had a significant degree of support from his citizens.
The coup ended up failing.
Turned out that the coup was directed by a constellation of groups interested in restoring neo-liberal market based policies. Chavez is about as Left as they come. Condoleezza and the administration was left to beat a hasty retreat, explaining why they would let a democratically elected president be taken out.
When I thought about Venezuela it all fit. But a cursory google search turns up few articles in which the link between US behavior in Haiti and Venezuela is made.
I haven't been able to get my head around the Haiti thing. I respectBaldilocks' opinion though it is seldom the same opinion as mine own. But here a couple of filters get in the way. When Aristide for example talks about "white Americans" arriving (to kidnap or kill him from his viewpoint) I'm not quite sure who he is talking about. From what I understand of racial dynamics in Haiti, the only black Haitians are the extremely dark skinned ones. I'd be white in Haiti, as would Aristide from pictures I've seen.
Then while listening to The Diane Rehm Show this morning, I hear American ambassadors talking about Aristide's voluntary departure, even as callers are explaining how Ron Dellums and Randall Robinson are arguing clearly that Aristide was hijacked. When asked to comment, the ambassadors would only say that the administration's viewpoint sounds more plausible.
Which of course throws me for a loop. Off on the budget by several billion. Off on jobs by a few million. Off on Medicare by tens of billions. Off on Weapons of Mass Destruction by....you get the picture. Either incompetence or lying...either way the administration's words don't carry much with me.
But it's the easy reactionary out to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Dellums has got my support for a number of reasons, but I KNOW that Aristide wasn't L'Overture. There's some deep history that I'm just not getting from any of the normal sources. I'm betting Aristide was a crook AND that democracy lost in Haiti today because US actions came a day late. I'm not sure how long it'll be before the real story comes out.
Paraphrasing.
"I knew we would win because my God was bigger than his God."
Pretty phallic.
In a newsbit I only heard today on the Diane Rehm Show, Task 11, a task force specifically created to capture Osama Bin Laden was disbanded a little over five weeks ago. Obviously Osama Bin Laden is still alive and dangerous. The word is that the US simply does not have the resources to both hunt for Bin Laden and rebuild Iraq.
Though I'm not surprised (nor am I surprised by the lack of news coverage of this item), it is still troubling to me. Wasn't it just yesterday that we were told that Bin Laden would be captured by any means necessary? That his infrastructure of terror would be dismantled?
Whatever the case, this appears to be part and parcel of an administration wide problem of attention to detail. Whether because of a presidential inability to focus, or because of our OWN attention deficit disorder (or even a combination of both) I'm not sure.
All I know is that I've been doing research on political attitudes in public schools and of the fifty classrooms I've been able to talk to only a couple correctly noted that NONE of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. Go figure.
Before it became apparent that Americans weren't exactly being welcomed with open arms in Iraq, I was skeptical. Of course, I'm skeptical ANYWAY but that's beside the point.
My thing was this. You're talking about a group of people being "overseen" by an occupying force that with a few exceptions does not look like them, does not speak their language, does not worship the same God, does not have the same interpersonal customs. If that isn't the recipie for problems--even before we take anti-American sentiment into account--I don't know what is.
So when I read that an Arab-American is suing the FBI, I'm wondering what took so long. The agents best able to properly grapple with Middle East (more properly Southwest Asia but that's another story) terrorists are going to be those agents the FBI will keep off the case for as long as possible.
The Ituri reminds me of pygmies. It was something I learned in highschool about human biodiversity. But, the pleasant memories of being called an African pygmy by my enlightened teenaged schoolmates are taking a back seat to a new genocide.
Now I know that since I am not a diplomat with international credentials I am not authorized to use such polarizing language. But hell, I heard that 14 year old boys are shooting faces off and hacking off genitalia and making necklaces with them. The death toll is something on the order of 3,000 a day if NPR commentators are to be believed. This is East Congo in the hands of several wretched militias.
The response of the 'International Community' is about on par with that of the International House of Pancakes. Everybody is invited to have a nice meal and discuss the matter. Well, it's a good thing because it's not making headlines. (I can't believe I just wrote "it's not making headlines", as if the concern of Americans who read headline has any moral force worth soliciting. Well it would if this were a proper empire, but as we know, it is not.
I think finally people with good sense are giving up on GWBush, not that he was so very brilliant in the first place. You have to admire his audacity - that is to say his willingness to step up and put a brave face on the peanut brittle diplomacy he dishes out. I can only hope that Colin Powell runs against him. Please do it. Out the bastard. He's just too slow.
Cheney-Powell '04. That'll work.
In the meantime we've got a world class disaster unfolding. Hema vs Lendu. Bastards we could stomp.
I am compelled to quote the Reverend Doctor at this moment. You know the old 'injustice anywhere' line. It is not sufficient. So I will steal a set of fundamental injunctions from a simple research paper covering King's Letter. The moment calls for the language. (Thank you Professor Draeger)
(1) Justice is not conformity to the law --- King argues that laws can be unjust and this implies that the state does not define justice. Segregation should not be considered just simply because it is the law of the land. (Notice that this is similar to the thought that justice is independent of public opinion found in the Crito. Note also that King shows respect for the law even while breaking it. This is seen in his willingness to submit to punishment.)(2) Justice is conformity to Gods Law --- God is the source of the moral law. So, any law of human creation that agrees with Gods law is considered just and any human law that violates Gods law is unjust. Segregation is considered unjust because it violates Gods law. (Notice that this definition depends on Kings particular theological views which others may or may not share).
(3) A law is just if it uplifts the human spirit and unjust if it degrades. There are at least two ways we can think of uplifting and degrading:
(3A) A law is uplifting if it has the effect of improving peoples lives and is degrading if people are worse off under it. In order to evaluate the law, we look to its consequences. Does it effect people positively or negatively? Here, segregation is unjust, because it doesnt lead to human flourishing (i.e. peoples lives are decidedly worse).
(3B) A law is uplifting if it respects human dignity and is degrading if it treats people as mere objects. This is not quite the same as evaluating consequences, rather it sets limits on the sorts of laws that can be considered just. Here, segregation is unjust, because it treats people as things and as such fails to show value human dignity.
(4) A law is just if it applies to all equally and is unjust if is imposed on some but not others. The thought seems to be that justice is tied up with fairness. A law cannot be just if it treats people unfairly. People are treated unfairly when they are treated differently. Here, segregation is unjust because it gives special treatment to whites and imposes unfair restrictions on blacks.
(5) A law is just if those bound by that law are involved in its creation and unjust otherwise. The thought here seems to be that democratically constructed laws are just in ways other laws are not. Here segregation is unjust because not some are excluded from political participation. (Notice how different this version is from the one found in (2)).
There is no violation of principle in applying equal measures of justice then here and now there. The question rather is are we capable? Are we the Bull Connors or are we Arkansas National Guard? Is our international policing capability ready? The capacity is clear, the rationale for evasion is murky. We cannot continue to pose as superheroes chasing mad scientists bent on world domination with secret weapons. We need to beat down the thugs with clubs. If we don't, then we cosign the kinds of dictatorships we just put down in Iraq and the Balkans.
We need to see, but we are looking in all the wrong places. Iran is not the place needing pacification. They are not at war with their neighbors. Nor is North Korea for that matter. I'm going to suggest this once and let your mind roam on it. What if we learn that some African warlord gets his hands on a bioweapon? Charles Taylor, for example? Don't look now...