Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I know vimothy and crackerjack have already said this is cobblers, but I'd just like to add that it is, indeed, cobblers.
Occupying the Moral High Ground
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
I know vimothy and crackerjack have already said this is cobblers, but I'd just like to add that it is, indeed, cobblers.
borderpolice
Well-known member
The USSR also had an overriding strategic interest of opposing the US. and Iran was oppsing the US ... my enemy's enemy ... again
vimothy
yurp
Not Iran, Iraq
crackerjack
Well-known member
You're clutching straws here. If that was their aim, why was the USSR the main arms supplier to Saddam in the 80s?
borderpolice
Well-known member
I didnt say that the US created the Sunni/Shia split. I presume that the US aggravated the situation.
I don't think that Saddam was perceived as a Sunni autocrat. More as a run of the-mill-dictator.
I have never heard a good explanation for the post-invasion ethnicisation in iraq. I'm open to suggestions. Until I have a good explanation, I will assume that it is a result of divide-and-conqure
strategies by occupiers.
All of this argues in favour of my original point that shia/sunni tensions are hardly inevitable.
borderpolice
Well-known member
From wikipedia (emphasis mine).
The Soviet Union and her satellites were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq following the 1972 signing of the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. France was another important supplier of weapons to Iraq during the 1970s. The United States, the world's leading arms exporter, did not have normal relations with Iraq from 1967 (due to the Six-Day War) until 1984.
Soviet-Iraqi relations suffered strains in the late 1970s. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982. During the war, the People's Republic of China became a major new source of weapons for Iraq, with increasing sales from France, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. At this point the United States also began assisting Iraq through its CIA maintained Bear Spares military aid program, which arranged for Soviet-made spare parts and ammunition to be sent to Baghdad. "If the Bear Spares were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement," Howard Teacher recalled.
Soviet-Iraqi relations suffered strains in the late 1970s. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982. During the war, the People's Republic of China became a major new source of weapons for Iraq, with increasing sales from France, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. At this point the United States also began assisting Iraq through its CIA maintained Bear Spares military aid program, which arranged for Soviet-made spare parts and ammunition to be sent to Baghdad. "If the Bear Spares were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement," Howard Teacher recalled.
The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:
"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."
The full extent of these hidden transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Clearly without the removal of Saddam, none of this would be happening, for the very simple reason that the Shia knew that revolt would be punished with massive repression and all of the usual niceities of Saddam's rule (families in the torture chambers, rape and murder of your children, etc).
Aggravated, i.e. took power from the Sunni / baath faction and gave it to the Shia and Kurdish factions. So, yes, I'd say they fucking aggravated the situation.
What? I don't understand your last sentence. Anyway, Saddam was a squarely Sunni strong-man, and was regarded as exactly that by the rest of the Sunni powers in the Sunni dominated Middle East. Those same powers now eye Iraq nervously and worry about the rising "Shia Crescent".
Based on what evidence, the fact that it is self-evident? This just sounds like willful ignorance to me, like saying, "I have no idea of this is true, but until someone comes up with a better explanation, I'm going to believe that we're all living in a computer game."
Again, are you reading my posts before you comment on them? In Iraq a small Sunni minority lost power at the hands of an international coalition to an oppressed Shia minority. If you can't see that this might cause friction between the two groups, I dispair of getting anywhere with this argument at all. I was saying that normally when leaders change in the Middle East, nothing changes - not the balance of power and not the ruling elite. Iraq was very different.
crackerjack
Well-known member
This wiki page gives a fuller picture of the Stockholm findings. A quick glance (and i'm really way too busy to be doing even that), let alone more, reveals there was not one single year where US sales to Iraq came even close to USSR's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq
Now, excuse me, i'm out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq
Now, excuse me, i'm out.
borderpolice
Well-known member
That's my point. If Saddam had died, assuming no Iraq II war, then given that admission above, you should expect the same in iraq: nothing changes - not the balance of power and not the ruling elite.
vimothy
yurp
And therefore these tensions merely wait (festering) until the regime collapses. I think that perhaps Qusay's or Uday's regime would have been totally unsustainable, especially given the state of Iraq after the wars and sanctions, and their reputations amongst the Shia.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Every society has lots of simmering tensions, poor vs rich being the most persistent. In fact the point of politics is to domesticate and defuse those. Nothing special about Iraq here, that would warant saying that after Saddam's death ethnic unrest of the scale we are seeing now would have been inevitable.
Last edited:
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Not that I want to get into a statistical pissing match, but two important facts not touched on in the (resumed) debate:
-The U.S. sold the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq that were used on Iran (and subsequently on Kurds and Shia in Iraq).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
Has to be worth some sort of mention, right? You think the Shia in Iraq forgot this?
-Increased ethnic violence, but still majority of attacks are on the occupying forces.
Those classifying the invasion of Iraq as "botched" somehow (and not immoral and idiotic in the first place): Do you envision a successful invasion/occupation that wouldn't result in guerrilla war (keeping in mind that until the occupation forces withdrew into the Green Zone, attacks were steady at 20-25% ethnic/criminal, 75% against occupiers and Iraqi security forces -- post-surge data not yet available).
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf -- Check page 8.
Can you imagine it going another way? Yes, yes, don't disband the army, don't get too overzealous in de-Baathification, I've heard all that before, and I don't find it very convincing. This imperial hubris, that the MNF could go in, kick ass, be greeted as liberators like it's France in 1944 and start from scratch with Halliburton writing the laws for a puppet government was a precondition to invasion, you can't conveniently extract it for your pet counterfactuals.
P.S. Afghanistan anyone? No Shia-Sunni split to pin everything on there, but still plenty of violence, lawlessness, continued attacks on coalition troops, etc. Some things they do have in common: Western invasion, occupation, and establishment of a puppet government. Oh, and privatization of the economy at the hands of multinational corporations. Hmm.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13518
http://privatization.mof.gov.af/EN/
-The U.S. sold the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq that were used on Iran (and subsequently on Kurds and Shia in Iraq).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
Has to be worth some sort of mention, right? You think the Shia in Iraq forgot this?
-Increased ethnic violence, but still majority of attacks are on the occupying forces.
Those classifying the invasion of Iraq as "botched" somehow (and not immoral and idiotic in the first place): Do you envision a successful invasion/occupation that wouldn't result in guerrilla war (keeping in mind that until the occupation forces withdrew into the Green Zone, attacks were steady at 20-25% ethnic/criminal, 75% against occupiers and Iraqi security forces -- post-surge data not yet available).
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf -- Check page 8.
Can you imagine it going another way? Yes, yes, don't disband the army, don't get too overzealous in de-Baathification, I've heard all that before, and I don't find it very convincing. This imperial hubris, that the MNF could go in, kick ass, be greeted as liberators like it's France in 1944 and start from scratch with Halliburton writing the laws for a puppet government was a precondition to invasion, you can't conveniently extract it for your pet counterfactuals.
P.S. Afghanistan anyone? No Shia-Sunni split to pin everything on there, but still plenty of violence, lawlessness, continued attacks on coalition troops, etc. Some things they do have in common: Western invasion, occupation, and establishment of a puppet government. Oh, and privatization of the economy at the hands of multinational corporations. Hmm.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13518
http://privatization.mof.gov.af/EN/
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
I think I am beginning to see the contours of the ideological divide though. Vimothy (you're the most prominent one taking this position, pumpkin, not the only one) takes the U.S. government at its word, not only in its statistics, but also in its stated goals and beliefs -- increased democratization, rule of law, no torture, good things for Iraqis, etc. Evidence to the contrary is ignored or waved away as Bad-Applism or honest "human" mistakes (millions dead and displaced -- oops, only human! Our bad!). Basically, it's better to SAY the right thing even if you don't follow it all the way, or you fuck it up, or even go against what you say because at least you're better than the savage Islamofascist-Weretiger-Schutzstaffel-Misogynist-Rapists (have we figured out if they fuck kids yet?) who use drills instead of stress positions (like the U.S. wouldn't drill skulls if they couldn't make a case for it, like we don't ship people off to other countries for "real" torture). Good intentions make all the difference, which is why presenting evidence is useless in the end -- this is an investment in ideology, not outcomes.
Then there are those that believe that democratization-toppling-dictators-FREEDOM FOR THE POOR OPPRESSED IRAQIS is just the humanitarian smokescreen for good old fashioned imperialism-by-the-sword, the gloss that covers up the fact that the invasion was for OTHER REASONS than those stated. This doesn't mean that people on this side think freedom for Iraqis to get purply thumbs is BAD, but it does mean that this is NOT why we dropped tons of clusterbombs on an impoverished nation. Thus, when this side points out things like systematic U.S. atrocities, it's to demonstrate that THE COALITION DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT IT IS SAYING TO YOU, and indeed, the whole premise of regime change it's based on is not only flawed but COMPLETE BULLSHIT in the first place. That white men in suits and uniforms are just bloodthirsty warmongers by other means. This is NOT hypocrisy, this is LYING THROUGH THE TEETH before during and after this botched smash-and-grab. This doesn't mean that people on this side don't believe that democracy and proportional self-rule for Iraqis is a Good Thing (although feel free to dredge up some out-of-context past comments of mine about democracy and ignore everything else I've said, you'll feel righter probably), or that Iraqis are irrationally incapable of democracy, just that we have trouble recalling when unprovoked war led to More Freedom and Better Living For All, and we doubt that this was really in the cards anyway. And this isn't to apologize or empathize with the forces of BabyBombing-RapeRooming-Probably-Paedos-Too-Islamofascist monsters, because obviously they're a nasty bunch who aren't even human in the first place, but they aren't exactly running the government and pumping the oil, although they seem to be quite good at blowing shit up and making scary videos.
So because one side is heavily invested in taking the Pure White Crusaders for Democracy at their word while the other side believes them to be just imperialists with good propaganda, all the bandying about of facts is basically useless. PEOPLE JUSTIFIED U.S. TORTURE because it's PG-13 instead of Rated R for fuck's sake, you have to basically abandon all hope of reasonable discussion at that point.
Then there are those that believe that democratization-toppling-dictators-FREEDOM FOR THE POOR OPPRESSED IRAQIS is just the humanitarian smokescreen for good old fashioned imperialism-by-the-sword, the gloss that covers up the fact that the invasion was for OTHER REASONS than those stated. This doesn't mean that people on this side think freedom for Iraqis to get purply thumbs is BAD, but it does mean that this is NOT why we dropped tons of clusterbombs on an impoverished nation. Thus, when this side points out things like systematic U.S. atrocities, it's to demonstrate that THE COALITION DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT IT IS SAYING TO YOU, and indeed, the whole premise of regime change it's based on is not only flawed but COMPLETE BULLSHIT in the first place. That white men in suits and uniforms are just bloodthirsty warmongers by other means. This is NOT hypocrisy, this is LYING THROUGH THE TEETH before during and after this botched smash-and-grab. This doesn't mean that people on this side don't believe that democracy and proportional self-rule for Iraqis is a Good Thing (although feel free to dredge up some out-of-context past comments of mine about democracy and ignore everything else I've said, you'll feel righter probably), or that Iraqis are irrationally incapable of democracy, just that we have trouble recalling when unprovoked war led to More Freedom and Better Living For All, and we doubt that this was really in the cards anyway. And this isn't to apologize or empathize with the forces of BabyBombing-RapeRooming-Probably-Paedos-Too-Islamofascist monsters, because obviously they're a nasty bunch who aren't even human in the first place, but they aren't exactly running the government and pumping the oil, although they seem to be quite good at blowing shit up and making scary videos.
So because one side is heavily invested in taking the Pure White Crusaders for Democracy at their word while the other side believes them to be just imperialists with good propaganda, all the bandying about of facts is basically useless. PEOPLE JUSTIFIED U.S. TORTURE because it's PG-13 instead of Rated R for fuck's sake, you have to basically abandon all hope of reasonable discussion at that point.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Yeah, which brings us right back to the topic of that other, adjacent thread, the one on Humour: it seems that when the (imperialist, neo-liberal, megaviolent) ideology becomes so irredeemably absurd as to no longer bear any actual relation to empirical - much less political - reality, out necessarily comes (often unwittingly) the polemical tactic of sarcasm, and later, satire and parody - because simple public awareness of the lies, of the scandals, of the horrors, has become largely impotent and superfluous in a cynically pragmatic culture. Even Lenin's Tomb has grown increasingly fond of it too
:There is is indeed a sincere and utterly demented belief that something called 'the West' faces an existential challenge from something called 'Islam', but the cause of it is not Islam. The cause of it, dare I say the root cause of it, is not merely a rationalisation of the alliance with American imperialism. It is an awareness of how fragile the 'West' really is, how threatened it is by its inner tensions and recurring crises, and how incapable it is of dealing productively with its problems. The prickliness and belligerence of these commentators hardly suggests a great deal of confidence in 'the West', after all. And what is there to be afraid of? In its worst possible light, the actual military threat from various Islamist groups is puny. There is no economic threat to US dominance besides capitalism's own inherent tendency toward secular crisis. The EU isn't going to acquire cohesion overnight, and China has a long way to go yet. The Muslim countries are all handily under lock and key with guns, gaolers, torture equipment and bombers supplied by America, where they don't simply occupy. Culturally, America is becoming asinine and in some cases decidedly on the verge of Streicherism, but if the challenge is supposed to be low-tech video signals from Osama, I wouldn't sweat it. It isn't an external challenge that is producing this crisis, any more than decadent liberals lacking moral clarity caused it. It was there, brewing all along: the economic turmoil, the racist retrogression, the erosion of cultural hegemony, even the inability of mainstream ideology to handle the 'feminisation' of discourse (in which "political correctness" is seen as linguistically emasculating, thus restraining the necessarily "robust" response to the enemy of the month), all of it is entirely, er, indigenous. Still, as a totem is clearly necessary, by all means blame Osama. If you can't blame Osama, blame Tariq. Hell, fuck it, blame me. I killed Kennedy, wounded Reagan, had unsatisfying sex with John Leslie, and crashed Diana's car. I did it all, and now I'm behind the Islamic plot. Dialogue with me is utterly useless: I don't expect you to talk, Mr Bond, I expect you to die.
Or maybe we just need many more goofy MIT students acting out Performance Art Suicide-Bomber Installations in Airports Everywhere ... (when all culture and politics has been aestheticized, nobody belonging to the status quo - especially power - can possibly comprehend the difference any longer ...).
ArtBombFake
vimothy
yurp
If you mean, was the current level of violence and chaos inevitable, then no, I don't think it was.
If you mean, was a guerillla war inevitable, then I tihnk it was, if only for the reason that Saddam and crew planned one before the invasion anyway.
What would you prefer? It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US adopted a new, less starry eyed approach to the WoT: cut all aid to the Middle East, especially to Palestine and Egypt; limit Muslim and Mid East migration to the West; secure or develop alternative energy sources as a matter of urgency; cease all development programmes in the region; limit investment; impose heavy taxes on imports; end all ties with non-democratic governments in the region; in the event of any more attacks on the West, let the response be Roman (i.e. annihilating). Basically, be as ruthless as possible. It would be more realistic and probably more exhilerating, at least for a while, but I still think that ultimately, the only way for them and us to live together peacefully, is when we all enjoy the same freedoms and are prosperous and hopeful. It is inconceivable that the Middle East will be reformed into peaceful and wealthy states when the majority of rulers are dictators living off the profits of inflated oil prices and little else. Something must act as a catalyst for change, whether it be the Bush doctrine or Peak Oil, because there is no way that Assad or the Saudis, for e.g., are just going to help set up representative democratic governments, create independent judiciaries, support private property, then disappear over the horizon. Change will require crisis. But don't worry too much. The Bush doctrine is dead. No one will be trying to engineer change for some time. The only absolute limit is that of oil, but given the constant development of new technologies and techniques, I expect that to be quite far away.
Oh, yeah: your comparison of Iraq to France just goes to show that it is possible to "occupy" a country for the right reasons. "Oh the Imperial hubris..." I bet the French said, repeatedly...
vimothy
yurp
LOL - oh, the "imperial hubris" of it all...
N
nomadologist
Guest
praise allah
vimothy
yurp
Another killer from the Groinaid, via Oliver Kamm:
Only The Guardian could put it this way:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, told Americans yesterday his country had no nuclear weapons programme, but then called his own credibility into question by insisting it had no gay people either."
"But"? "But"?
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, told Americans yesterday his country had no nuclear weapons programme, but then called his own credibility into question by insisting it had no gay people either."
"But"? "But"?