Iraqis Now Free To Do Whatever We Want Them To Do?
	found on New York Times (registration required) written by Djerrid, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 12 Apr 4:29am
		Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor for Pres. Bush Sr. posed this question to him: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over." Of the many reasons the current Bush Administration has given for the invasion of Iraq, freeing the Iraqi people from a dictatorship and replacing it with a representive democracy is the one they are currently touting (especially since WMD are nowhere to be found). Both Bush and Blair made pronouncements on Iraq's state television airwaves with Bush saying "The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you" and "You deserve to live as free people". Blair was as generous stating: "The money from Iraqi oil will be yours; to be used to build prosperity for you and your families". What would happen if the Iraqis actually took that at face value?

	Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld told congress last month that "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to...the Iraqi government and the international community" and that the US would "tap Iraq's oil revenues". Assuming that Iraqis wouldn't want their oil taken from them to enrich Bush's bedside partners, if a true representative democracy was put in place, they would elect someone who would fight to keep control of their oil. As we have seen in Venezuela, the Bush Administration supports US- and business-friendly regimes over democratically elected governments. Can we expect anything less here? Especially with the second largest oil reserves in the world at stake? Will it then be possible for Iraq to vote for someone who isn't in tight with Bush's cronies?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 47 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Democracy needs prosperity   by somebaudy       at Sat 12 Apr 5:13am score of 1     A democratic Iraq would be a wonderful thing. This will be difficult to achieve because the people there are poor. Any radical promising them anything is likely to win votes. It looks like there are islamic clerics managing towns. Let's hope this is not a remake of Iran in 1979. It will take money and investments benefiting directly to the iraqi people before political parties that are all believing in democracy can emerge. It could be wise to heal the country's economy first, maybe doing a smaller version of the Marshall plan first, wait for a democratic political scene to emerge and then hold elections. [sig]"insert something witty here"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  The Marshall plan and all that.   by vurt       at Sun 13 Apr 10:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Funny you should mention the Marshall plan. Recall that aid to Italy and France was made contingent upon both countries suppressing their (1 million+ membership) communist parties (1). One wonders how swiftly democracy will take hold if we're silencing various oppositional groups at the same time. I'm not certain that our actions will heal the country's economy so much as they will bring Iraqi oil firmly under our aegis (this of course is a moot point; I find dependency theory much more compelling, given the evidence of the last half-century, than Rostow's development & "take-off" stance on developing countries). And while we're wait[ing] for a democratic political scene to emerge (do those just spontaneously emerge?) we'd better plan on spending a few billion a year occupying their country...and on building schools and hopitals as well as maintaining our troops. *** (1) See Mark Mazower, _Dark Continent_. And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Democracy needs prosperity   by Grand High Wonko       at Sun 13 Apr 11:06pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 1     I don't agree that democracy goes hand in hand with prosperity. Here in South Africa, we are overwhelmingly poor, and yet democracy is quite firmly established here, not to mention other nations such as India and Botswana. The linking factor in all of them though is that they chose democracy rather than having it forced on them. "We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river" - Hunter S. Thompson   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Democracy needs prosperity   by snarkism       at Mon 14 Apr 7:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     A democratic Iraq would be a wonderful thing. This will be difficult to achieve because the people there are poor. I dunno. Seems to me that too much wealth is just as destructive to democracy as not enough. Just look at the East Timorese. they are as poor as shit, but they are becoming fiercely democratic. Probably BECAUSE of their poverty, they see the importance of democracy. When you are rich, who needs democracy? You have the power of money. I would say that the East Timorese are way more passionate and concerned about real democracy, than the US, Australia or Europe is today. Or otherwise look at India, which has a rather progressive democracy in a very poor region. Democracy has nothing to do with money, IMO. It has to be something that you desire in your heart, and support with your mind. Not dollars. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  An interesting question.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 12 Apr 5:32am score of 1.5 compelling     The one about whether the U.S. government will stand by as the Iraqis democratically try to pick up the pieces. What would be pleasing to Washington would be some sort of secular client state of ours, eternally grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam. But what if the democratic Iraq that emerges isn't what we would like to see? Supposing that the Iraqis democratically decide to rebuild their military? After all, at the point in time that they become a democratic Arab nation, they would sort of stand alone among the nations of the Middle East, other than Turkey and Israel. They would have a hostile Syria next door. They would have an antagonistic democracy in Iran next door with all those bones to pick with Iraq. They would have a democratic Turkey just to the North with an eagle's eye out if those pesky Kurds get the autonomy they have been insisting upon for years. What if they democratically selected some firebrand politician whose main platform was to get the U.S. out? Lastly, supposing they were to democratically decide to opt for the democratic model of Iran with a rather fundamentalist Islamic streak running through the body politic? About the only thing I will predict is that the coming few years promise to be extremely interesting times for Iraq. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: An interesting question.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 12 Apr 5:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     A correlating interesting question is should Iraq be declared debt free. This was the topic of a previous plastic thread where the prevailing wisdom was yes. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Here's an idea   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 12 Apr 9:14am score of 2.5 intriguing     Sharing, Alaska-Style By Steven C. Clemons The New York Times April 9, 2003 Though most Americans don't believe this war is about oil, much of the rest of the world does. How the United States handles Iraq's oil after the war is therefore crucial. For guidance, America might look to its experiences in Japan after World War II and — perhaps more surprisingly — in Alaska in the 1970's. Most revolutions that produce stable democracies expand the number of stakeholders in the nation's economy. America's occupation of Japan succeeded not just because the United States purged Japan's warmongers and established a peace constitution but because it imposed land reform. American occupiers broke up vast estates held by the Japanese aristocracy and redistributed the land to farmers, thus linking Japan's most lucrative resource to millions of citizens. Now America should do the same with Iraq's most lucrative resource, oil. Here is where Alaska comes in. In the 1970's, during the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the state realized that the new oil leases would produce an enormous windfall. Its citizens set up the Alaska Permanent Fund to manage this income, directing that the revenue be invested, the principal remain untouched and the gains be used for state infrastructure investments. A part of the proceeds was distributed as dividends to every Alaskan. By July 2002, the fund had grown to more than $23.5 billion. Dividend payments to Alaskan families averaged about $8,000 per year. Iraq's annual oil revenue comes to approximately $20 billion. A postwar government could invest $12 billion a year in infrastructure to rebuild the nation. The other $8 billion could anchor an Iraq Permanent Fund, to be invested in a diverse set of international equities. The resulting income would go directly to Iraq's six million households. These payments would make a huge difference to families in a country whose per capita gross domestic product rests at about $2,500. Establishing this fund would show a skeptical world that America will make sure Iraq's oil revenues directly benefit Iraqi citizens. By spreading capital broadly among new stakeholders, the plan would also prevent a sliver of Iraq's elite from becoming a new kleptocracy. Finally, the creation of an Iraqi oil fund could begin to help repair America's damaged image abroad — itself no small dividend at a time when many people remain suspicious about American motives in the Middle East. Copyright: 2003 The New York Times link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  'The Spice Must Flow'   by Djerrid       at Sat 12 Apr 7:21pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 4     Interesting, I wrote something similar in my original submission. If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him. So this idea could come about internally or externally. The question I put forth in the submission was would this admin. with its history of trying to obtain as much power and control through every means, actually let control of the oil the hawks fought so hard for slip into the hands of the Iraqi people? Instead I'd bet the admin. would work to make sure Iraq is rebuilt just enough to get the oil flowing and to appease the international communitee, thereby retaining control of who will profit from the oil (themselves and their companies). So look forward to "terrorist" attacks and "pockets of resistance" to be used to justify the direct or indirect control of Iraqi's political and economic freedoms. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: 'The Spice Must Flow'   by advancedatheist       at Sat 12 Apr 10:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him. That would actually be a good idea for the U.S. With our absurd GDP, you'd think we could get a basic dividend just for breathing. A no-strings stipend of even $5,000/year, regardless of income, could help more people get health insurance or buy their prescription drugs. That would give us a taste of what it's like to be shamefully dependent on multigenerational inherited wealth like some politicians I could name. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: 'The Spice Must Flow'   by Djerrid       at Sun 13 Apr 12:50pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 18     'The Atlantic' had a similar idea and we've discussed it once or twice. Yes, it's a wonderful idea; yes, it would put money into the hands of those that need it most and yes, it would jump-start the economy through demand-side economics; but no, those who have the power to enact this won't because it is not in their short term intrests. Long term? Yup, it would prime the pump to get money circulating through all economic levels of society which would quickly filter back to the economic powerhouses. So why would anyone be against it...? 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: 'The Spice Must Flow'   by Nameless Cynic       at Mon 14 Apr 6:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     why would anyone be against it...? Maybe because the people who would have been getting unbelievably rich would then only be getting ridiculously rich. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Hell If I Know   by uncarved block       at Sat 12 Apr 9:17am score of 1     but in grand Plastic tradition, here's a few thoughts anyway.       Unlike many others, I don't think the problem with the next government is going to be its repressiveness, at least not right away. A recent comment pointed out that unlike the post WWII reconstructions, there isn't any government left, nor would we want to return former Baath party officials to power. So the US is going to train this generation of police, firemen, and clerks. Men who want to push around others will not be welcome. Now, if we start shipping a few to the School of the Americas (or whatever it's called currently), then I'll pray for the future of normal Iraqis.       The real trouble is going to be, IMHO, corruption. The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard; our 'corruption' would be thought restrained by leaders in Russia and even Mexico. The chances that the first elected leader of Iraq will be corrupt seems near certain. The name highest on the list right now, Chalabi (sp?), has a track record of 'misplacing' large sums of cash, but I doubt any of the other candidates with US ties are much better.       Like it or not, fair or not, the first man will be "our man", no matter how independent he tries to be. Speaking in purely political terms (ie. amoral), it might be better for this chap if the US runs the oil operations for a while. You can't sell out what you don't control, after all, and that likely will be the charge levied against the first government a few years down the road. To answer the writeup, I don't think there's a chance in hell we'll allow anyone into office who won't cut a deal over the oil. For one, he will likely be doing so in the name of something else (Islam, national pride, political extremism of right or left) that will allow the US to label him 'unacceptable'-- and really, who's going to stop us from stepping in again, if we've even left by then?       I'd also like to bring up a point made by Bernard Lewis, namely that this invasion hasn't changed as much as it seems, because the lesson taught the Muslim world has remained the same since Napoleon arrived in Egypt-- the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen. The French were displaced the British, and in Iraq, the US has deposed a regime we at least fostered, even if we didn't create it. This is the source of the sense of powerlessness that motivates men like bin Laden, and is the reason I (and others) never thought replacing Saddam was going to change the war on terror much.       Now, one way we could counter this image is to allow an openly religious government to come to power in Iraq, but the chances of this are nil, IMO. Conventional wisdom in the US equates Islamic law with the Taliban, despite (again, thanks to Lewis) a long rich tradition of limited state and religious power. Iraq is secular enough, from what I've read, that a religious government might work; Iraqis have seen (and lived) enough modernity to know they don't want an Iranian style theocracy. Replacing Saddam with a functional Islamic democracy would be the single biggest blow we could strike against the Islamofacists-- but will it fly with the base of Bush's party? As a general rule, any policy that takes more than one sentence to explain is a political loser, and man, explaining this would take a paragraph.       (Oh, and in reference to a recent Plastic article, there's really no problem using 'he' throughout-- the chances of a woman attaining any power next door to Saudi Arabia seems very, very slim indeed). Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Hell If I Know   by mightygodking       at Sat 12 Apr 5:06pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 5     The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard I don't think anybody told Italy or Spain that. It's not just a government any more!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Hell If I Know   by Notyou       at Sun 13 Apr 6:28am score of 1 funny   in reply to comment 12     I don't think anybody told Italy or Spain that. These nations' close proximity to the Moors militates against full development of proper European norms with respect to governmental corruption. But now we know why both were so eager to join the Coalition of the Willing. Me neither.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  -1 overgeneralization   by vurt       at Sun 13 Apr 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I'd also like to bring up a point made by Bernard Lewis, namely that this invasion hasn't changed as much as it seems, because the lesson taught the Muslim world has remained the same since Napoleon arrived in Egypt-- the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen. Um: 1979, Iran. Lebanon. All the Israeli wars. All of these changes originated in the Middle East, and the West took a spot on the sidelines. Note also that the most recent attempted great-power intervention in the Middle East (before the 1990s, anyway) was the '56 Suez Crisis, which did not enjoy marked success. In short: there have been any number of significant changes fueled by local powers, just as there have been instances in which the West was unable to change the course of Middle Eastern events. I only bring this up because you were sounding a little 'Orientalist' (you've read Said, right?)... And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  To Elaborate   by uncarved block       at Sun 13 Apr 6:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Actually, Lewis refined the point further than I did by stating that politics in the region has typically involved playing one side (a western nation, the Soviets) against another. In your Suez canal example, didn't the whole endeavor collapse (in part) because Eisenhower told his "allies" to knock it off? Also, I'm not sure you can describe the US as 'sitting on the sidelines' when it comes to Israel-- massive foreign aid aside, I don't think anyone in the world doubts where US allegiances lay when it came to any conflict between Israel and its neighbors.       I didn't mean to imply that the West runs the region like a puppet show, merely that in many respects the "lesson" Lewis mentioned remains unchanged by the current war. To back your point, Khaddafi has remained in power without any Western backing, and the Iranian government didn't collapse without the veiled threat of selling out to the Soviets in its hand (that whole 'warm water/year round port' thing. When Khomenei took power, after all, Afghanistan and its 'modernization' had not yet happened. Besides, we had our man Hussein in Iraq right next door, and certainly he/i> would never cross us, right . . . ?       No, I haven't read much Said, perhaps an article or two, but I'm also uncertain how this changes much. Isn't one of his main complaints about 'Orientalism' that the decision makers in the West think too much that way? If I'm too Orientalist then, am I closer or further away from the thinking of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and even Bush?       As always, and as this comment illustrates too well, if a line is -1 Overgeneralized, it's because I'm well aware that there's a lot of words coming before and after it. I'd say I'd go out and read some Said, but working in a huge ass used book store, my nightstand is already a tad full; knowing you reccomend it, though, might give me more incentive to pick up the next copy I see. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  A welcome elaboration. re Said,   by vurt       at Wed 16 Apr 8:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     Actually a few articles by him are probably good enough. Here's a precis tho: In Orientalism (1978), Edward Said argues that Orientalism is "knowledge of the Orient that places things Oriental in class, court, prison, or manual for scrutiny, study, judgment, discipline, or governing." Since ancient times Orientalism has operated as a disciplinary matrix and filter on what we know of the East; in modern times it has been "secularized, redisposed, and re-formed by such disciplines as philology" and "transformed itself from being textual and contemplative into being administrative, economic, even military." Per Foucault, knowledge and power are inseparable--the growth of knowledge about the East served to both justify and expedite its colonization by the European powers. This "set of structures inherited from the past" affected not only how the European perceives the Orient; by reifying the Orient as the feminine, irrational "Other," it has also been integral to the self-conceptualization of Europe as masculine, rational, advanced, free, and so on. Orientalism is so total and immanent that "every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric." Indeed, inasmuch as liberal humanism is tainted by its inability to examine its own precepts and cultural norms, it "retards the process of enlarged and enlarging meaning through which true understanding can be attained." Thus my seizing upon your parse of Lewis as the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen as potentially an "Orientalized" statement b/c it sounded like all the agency was concentrated in the West's hands. Your explanation cleared that right up. Isn't one of his main complaints about 'Orientalism' that the decision makers in the West think too much that way? If I'm too Orientalist then, am I closer or further away from the thinking of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and even Bush? ,/i>--Nope, Said's point is just that all Western eyes look in the same manner upon the Orient.       Here I think he's wrong--I'm pretty sure my and your eyes don't light up with dollar signs the way Bush & Co.s' do on viewing the Middle East. But as far as subconscious operations and presumptions go, he probably has a point. but working in a huge ass used book store, my nightstand is already a tad full--hey, I'll be looking for a summer job in a few weeks here. Y'all hiring? :) And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Hell If I Know   by Airbag       at Sun 13 Apr 2:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen. This statement is certainly true on one level but utterly false on another. Consider how both the Wahhabis and the Shi'is of the Shrine cities began a process of state formation in reaction to the pervasive influence of the Ottoman Empire. They went on to have markedly different political fortunes but they are both bracketed by realities that are remarkably similar to the conditions of Empire they both hoped to overturn. In Iraq, those conditions are easily traced. King Faysal, who was installed by the British, used Western power in ways that the British didn't really understand. Where the Brits only saw anarchic revolt in the twenties, the King knew damn well who was fighting who and why. Faysal moved to diminish the power of the Shi'is through consolidating the position of those who used to serve the Ottomans. This same group is where the Baath came from. Their original credo of Pan Arabism turned out to really mean just a particualar set of Arabs. So, from the Shia point of view, the West is what has kept things the same and has not been a force of dynamic change. Saying this does not argue against your point about letting the Shia take on the responsibility of autonomy rather than stew in resentment. But it does put the Administration's plan in a different light. They don't have to hand pick a leader to insure their influence in Iraq. They just need to establish the larger boundary conditions of national obligation and financial incentives and the old divisions will tend to replicate the old solutions. Changing this pattern would not so much require an imposition of western polity on the country so much as making sure that the divisions were dealt with in some way that was at least a break from the past. There is no plan in the works for making this happen. Wolfowitz's idea about "town meetings" and working on a very local level sounds great but is already on the verge of becoming a sound byte in the immediate call for remnants of the old civic authority to reassert themselves. It looks like those MPs that General Shikenski asked for are one of the things missing from the Democracy project right now. Quickly returning control to the Iraqis after having trashed their government is not a step toward empowering them. I don't mean to object to Bernard Lewis's statement from the Said "Orientalism" angle that Vurt brought up but rather just represent the problem as a collection of conflicting parties that have been controlled in the past by forcing them to compete against each other instead of finding power through common ends. As a foreign power, it would require a conscious sacrifice of US interest in the country not to play the part of the New Ottoman. The story Wolfowitz tells, however is of a win win situation. There is no recognition given on his part of the depth of the system he would have be replaced. He is either lying or throwing his leg over the same motorcycle Lawrence of Arabia was fond of.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Hell If I Know   by bufferoverflowed       at Mon 14 Apr 12:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     So the US is going to train this generation of police, firemen, and clerks. Men who want to push around others will not be welcome. What type of person do you think is primarily attracted to a position of power? Someone who wants to do good, or someone who likes the idea of pushing people around? I'll give you a hint, it's not the former. What makes you think that the US has so completely eradicated the problem of abuse of power domestically that we can easily identify and curtail it in another culture? Just curious. never(17), world(16), wrong(15), weapons(14), country(13), every(13), reasons(11), saddam(11), still(10), american(10)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Macho Vs Domineering   by uncarved block       at Mon 14 Apr 9:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     My comment was meant more to suggest that Baath party wannabes were not going to make the cut. The context I was thinking of was the notion (floated by some opposing the war) that the next regime would merely be "Baath-lite"-- same goons sans Saddam. Also note that I mentioned firemen and clerks. I've met a lot of macho firemen, but not many domineering ones. YMMV.       I'll agree with you on the general principle. I've often thought that anyone who really, really wanted to be a cop, general or politician should be excluded on that basis alone. For every hero, there's a dozen bullies, and the ratio is even lower in politicians-- about 1 in a thousand heros, on a guess . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  A Revelant Fable   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 12 Apr 10:59am score of 1 funny     Once upon a time, there were some people who had been living in a desert with two rivers for about 7,000 years. They may have independently discovered or invented civilization as we know it, but they were incapable of conceiving anything but a despotic tyrant to run it. Thus it had always been, for 7,000 years. Then along came a cowboy called Dubya and his sidekicks. They reckoned they had a better idea. So they called their buddies, the Marines and the Airborne, who kicked the current tyrant's ass. Then they told the people that they were to use something called "democracy" to choose a leader who was NOT a tyrannical, blood-thirsty despot. The people were supposed to organize not just one, but at least two "political parties," and hold "elections" to a "parliament" or "national assembly" as well as select a "president" to run the show. Dubya told them that they also needed a "supreme court" and a "constitution." The people got to work, doing as they were instructed, but Dubya didn't like the results. The "politicians" chosen by the people to staff the national assembly and the presidency didn't want to sell their natural resources to Dubya and his friends for the prices Dubya liked. Fortunately, there were some irregularities in the "vote count," and the new supreme court appointed some people whom Dubya and his friends did indeed find suitable. Moral: When exporting democracy, make sure to export your own brand of it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  bitter much?   by chasing       at Sat 12 Apr 11:18am score of 1     If the Iraqi's vote for some radicals, well let them. It's their country. I just hope they keep the ability to vote the radicals out again, if they so desire. But you know, with radicals, you can never tell... As for the oil. You'd prefer they gave the contracts to some happy local companies? Which ones? It'd be easier to pick apart the contracts already given if I knew exactly what was in them, but my (admittedly quick) perusal of related articles didn't uncover that. Are they contracts stretching years, or until such a time as a successor government can make determinations of their own? I think it makes a difference. As for the "many reasons", talk about a pot-shot. I don't think one reasons ever really supplanted any other, rather they just sort of piled on. But what's WMD got to do with Bush's oil cronies (if you choose to look upon them as cronies anyway)? The administrations hasn't dropped the WMD argument, after all. Let's not pretend they have. I think maybe you're getting some (WMD) peanut butter in their (oil) chocolate. A valid concern, but better when tackled separately.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Iraq as libertarian utopia   by advancedatheist       at Sat 12 Apr 11:33am score of 2 funny     I'm wondering why all the world's oppressed libertarians aren't now flocking to Iraq. After all, we now have a country with no taxes; no speed limits; no minimum wage laws; no environmental regulations; no age of consent laws; no restrictions on firearms, pornography, prostition & drugs; no social democracy; no public health provisions; etc. What more would a libertarian want? "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Things that make you go Hmmm...   by Iluminati       at Sat 12 Apr 8:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     You know what, atheist dude, you have a point. Even though I was (and still am) the initiation of force by the US government the admittedly evil government of Saddam Hussein, you do have a point. This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world. However, I'm a bit nervous about experimental governance. The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile. Can we figure out a way to do the free minds, free markets thing without some bloodshed? I just want a place when I can chill without cops harassing on general principle without thousands of innocent civilians dying first. When I'm not watching Fox News, I'm listening to my main man Marley Marl on Power 105.1!!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by advancedatheist       at Sat 12 Apr 10:18pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 15     This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world. Not to mention Islam. The Koran forbids theft and commands that thieves lose their hands, but the Muslims shopping Iraq's going-out-of-business sale don't seem to be worried about that. It's about time to put this romantic libertarian fantasy away. The empirical historical evidence shows that most people need an effective government to keep them in line because they lack foresight & self-control. The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile. Apparently the free-market fundamentalists who point to Chile's privatized social security system as a model for the U.S. aren't bothered by the fact that this system was imposed upon the Chilean people by a military dictatorship. Given the erosion of responsible civilian government in the U.S., these advocates might be more prophetic than they realized. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by Iluminati       at Sat 12 Apr 11:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     It's about time to put this romantic libertarian fantasy away. The empirical historical evidence shows that most people need an effective government to keep them in line because they lack foresight & self-control. What you're implying is that the libertarian fantasy is that most people DON'T need an effective government. That's playing fast and loose with the truth. What's you're thinking of is anarchocapitalism, a subset of libertarian thought, not the WHOLE of libertarian thought (like objectivism, minarchism and the like). Quite personally, I find anarchocapitalists tend to 1) dismiss the social implications of their philosophy (many tend to be socially conservative) and 2) worship disorder so much that they lionize criminals for sticking it to the state. I'm not as much anti-state as I am pro-freedom. Granted, in most cases pro-freedom==anti-state, but there are some minimal restrictions on freedom that are needed to preserve the most freedom for the most people (i.e. property rights, rule of law, effective courts and military and the like.) However, the state is generally the problem, not the solution. LOL When I'm not watching Fox News, I'm listening to my main man Marley Marl on Power 105.1!!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by advancedatheist       at Sun 13 Apr 12:13am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 22     However, the state is generally the problem, not the solution. LOL The empirical evidence shows that social-democratic countries generally have better living standards than the U.S. Cities in social democracies put American cities to shame. Basically Americans are being lied to about how great things are here. Sure, we're "wealthier" on a per capita basis, though that's misleading because of the top-heavy income and net-worth distributions. But we are most certainly not getting our money's worth when it comes to quality of life. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Sun 13 Apr 9:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     I'm not sure that specific evidence really shows that. The provided list of the top 15 countries by quality of life has 5 social democratic countries above the US, and 7 below (I don't know whether to count Iceland or Japan as social democratic). If the US was so bad, wouldn't it be at the bottom of the list, or off the list altogether? I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by advancedatheist       at Sun 13 Apr 11:01am score of 2 nuanced   in reply to comment 26     Any developed democratic country with guaranteed healthcare would be an improvement over the U.S. I'm really struck by the bind the U.S. government finds itself in now: Ideologically opposed to running healthcare as a public, nonprofit humanitarian service, yet being shamed by world opinion for allowing the destruction of the healthcare system in Iraq and not stepping in to provide desperately needed medical assistance at American taxpayers' expense. What's a Republican like Bush to do? "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Sun 13 Apr 11:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Why provide a list as "emperical evidence" for your point when you disagree with the list's conclusion — that the US has the 6th best quality of life in the world? I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by advancedatheist       at Sun 13 Apr 11:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     It's a matter of the human condition versus the irrational economic expectations propagandized by the American system where everyone "theoretically" has a chance to get rich. You have a near-unity chance of becoming chronically ill or disabled if you live long enough, whereas you have maybe a 1 in 100 chance of becoming wealthy enough to provide for yourself once you are no longer able to work. Which is more likely to happen to most people over their lives — impoverished debility, or financial independence? Social democracies assess the risks a lot more rationally, from what I've observed about real human performance, and try to provide for what's more likely to happen to people than getting rich. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Sun 13 Apr 11:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     You are missing my point. You have repeatedly asserted that there is "empirical evidence" that social democracies are superior. Yet, the piece of evidence you provided does not demonstrate that. If you want to argue that they are better from a philosophical standpoint, fine. If you want to argue that you prefer them, fine. If you want to offer anecdotes that they are better, fine. If you claim they are empirically superior, you have to present some kind of empirical evidence supporting that conclusion. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by advancedatheist       at Sun 13 Apr 12:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     The most livable cities in the world are in social-democratic countries — not in the U.S., in other words. America has more social pathologies than social democracies, despite being "wealthier." And it's a scandalously open secret that we Americans are simply not getting our money's worth when it comes to healthcare compared with social-democratic Europeans & Australians — assuming you can get healthcare at all, that is. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by Victor Lazlo       at Sun 13 Apr 1:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Advanced, you are knocking, but no one is home. Most Americans believe a shot at the lottery is worth living in a glorified banana republic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Sun 13 Apr 1:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     I actually have to be one of the few libertarians who thinks that single-payer healthcare would be a good idea...so I agree with you there. I wish I could see that whole list of cities...sort of frustrating just to be able to see the top and bottom ten and not see the other 80. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Sun 13 Apr 2:19pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 36     Yes, just like most Europeans are lazy, unambitious communists who want to live of the sweat and hard work of others while doing none themselves. There's a real discussion to be had here, if you refrain from name-calling and making sweeping generalizations about 275 million people. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by rEvolution inAction       at Sun 13 Apr 4:29pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 31     Why provide a list as "emperical evidence" for your point when you disagree with the list's conclusion — that the US has the 6th best quality of life in the world? If the US has the sixth best quality of life, yet is the economic heavyweight of the world, isn't that empirical evidence of mismanagement? Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm...   by bitekman       at Mon 14 Apr 8:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Perhaps the bigger irony is that, if that list is taken at face value, dozens of countries commiting a larger proportion of their resources to quality of life issues are ranked lower. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Iraq as libertarian utopia   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 12 Apr 10:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     You're correlating the fall of the government with "no laws." Sorry, AA. I know religion isn't your strong suit, but they have laws. In fact, three of the items you mention (pornography, prostitution and drugs) are specifically mentioned. (Drugs fall under the same strictures as alcohol.) Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Iraq as libertarian utopia   by advancedatheist       at Sat 12 Apr 10:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     The Muslims looting Iraq don't seem to be worried about losing their hands, as Islamic law prescribes for thieves. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Iraq is currently libertarian   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 12 Apr 11:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     The word you're looking for here is "chaos." Has to do with a bunch of people (in this case, oppressed people), just recovering from the shock of being in a war zone, suddenly finding themselves free of any form of government. By the same token, there was looting in France immediately following the loss of German control during WWII, there was looting following the American Civil War. It's traditional for people to act like assholes following a nice shooting war. Has nothing to do with their culture specifically. This is what we call "anarchy." It's extremely similar to what a Libertarian state would turn into. (Unless one of the Libertarians had a bunch of guns and an urge to take over. Then we'd end up with something extremely similar to the government we just removed from power... Of course, he wouldn't have been a good Libertarian at that point, would he?) -------- Little side note, only vaguely OT: You know why having your right hand cut off is the punishment for theft. It's only partially to do with the fact that nobody gets caught stealing more than twice. Has to do with a little cultural peculiarity of the Arab world. When you're riding your camel through the desert, there isn't necessarily going to be a grocery store nearby where you can buy toilet paper. And probably won't even be able to find a plant with good-sized leaves. So they have a simple solution. The "good" things (eating, etc.) are done with the right hand. The "bad" things (to include cleaning off the feces) are done with the left hand. So, when the right hand comes off... Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Iraq is currently libertarian   by advancedatheist       at Sat 12 Apr 11:58pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 21     This is what we call "anarchy." It's extremely similar to what a Libertarian state would turn into. (Unless one of the Libertarians had a bunch of guns and an urge to take over. Then we'd end up with something extremely similar to the government we just removed from power... Of course, he wouldn't have been a good Libertarian at that point, would he?) Libertarians apparently don't understand that more people than we are comfortable acknowledging are deficient in foresight & self-control. A libertarian utopia would require a level of self-discipline that is not all that common in the real world. Social democracy recognizes this widespread human deficiency and tries to construct a prosthetic environment to keep life's bumblers out of trouble through guaranteed healthcare, unemployment insurance and old-age pensions. The competent people in social-democratic countries have to pay for their neighbors' zoo-keeping through higher taxes than Americans would currently tolerate, but the empirical results seem to justify the expense. Maybe a reconstructed Iraq could pay for social democracy with a tax on oil sales. Even incompetent people deserve reparations for having been put through the kind of hell Iraq has experienced over the last generation. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  But how about...   by rmurf62       at Sun 13 Apr 10:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Wait a minute, wasn't Somalia the first libertarian utopia? YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Not the Future You Would Expect....   by Krv       at Sat 12 Apr 3:42pm score of 1     I think that the Bush adminsitration is truthfull when they are promising the Iraqi nation freedom. The freedom they are promising the them is economic freedom, not political freedom. The model for the Iraqi future is not that which, we Americans are presently familiar with... the freedoms and personal liberties outlined in our Constitution, ideas distilled from the works of those great personages of the Age of Enlightenment. Iraq will be a society organized on the principle of a Capitalist Autocracy. The same model America is headed for in the future (where we will be joined by China and Singapore).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  It's all in the rules   by M. Mosher       at Sat 12 Apr 8:12pm score of 1     Rebuilding the country and helping to institute democracy in Iraq will not happen by announcing an election and inviting candidates to step forward. Before elections, some sort of constitution or articles of federation will have to be drawn up. These will, after all, determine the rules by which the democracy is run. A constitutional convention (I'm using Americanisms here because that is what I'm more familiar with — it can just as easily be a parliament or something else) must be formed made up of tribal leaders, ethnic representatives, local and regional leaders, religious leaders, and others. This convention will hammer out the rules. The rules will entail lots of things but elections and changes to the rules will be included. Ideally, the rules will disallow too much power in the hands of too few and it will disallow tyrants. The rules should make sure that one group cannot be brutalized by another. They should spell out rights and obligations of citizens and limits of governmental power. They might (probably should) separate the military and the police, they should remove the courts from the jurisdiction of the prime minister or president. In short, the rules should be written in such a way that no matter who gets elected Iraq will not sink back into a dictatorship. Then, when the country is ready and everyone understands the rules as written by the Iraqis themselves, elections can be held for the actual administration and legislation of Iraq. This is the point at which the world will become interested to see if wannabe dictators rise to power and to see if newly elected leaders set about trying to change the rules. If Iraq decides to make itself an Islamic republic, that is their decision. Where the US will get its knickers bunched is if Iraq wants from the very beginning to model itself into another 13th century caliphate. The US and UK hope that Iraqi dissident groups living in the west for so many years have absorbed western ideas of governance and will have the ability to influence the new rules enough to form a functioning democracy there. Arabs have a traditional fondness and aptitude for capitalism and a distrust of socialism so the US is probably banking on not having to do much to steer the economic system under which the country will operate. Nationalizing oil revenues or setting aside a portion for a general fund is probably the extent of socialism the US is hoping for. However, since oil is about the only source of foreign exchange for Iraq, most of the needs of Iraqis will have to be paid for through socialized oil. If it works well, the rules or constitution will prevent oil revenues from being siphoned away from people's needs and into palaces and a large military. Time will tell.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Nice even-handed writeup, by the way...   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 12 Apr 10:58pm score of 2 interesting     Even if the entire country of Iraq goes directly to civil war in the next few years, the odds are hugely in favor of it not being instigated by some Byzantine plot of the US government to keep control of this region (as has been suggested in some of the posts above). Before the Ba'ath party finally took over in 1968 (for the second time, incidentally), the country of Iraq, which had only existed as a political entity for 3 dozen years, had been through a monarchy, a socialist government, and two military dictatorships. It would be difficult to say that the region had ever been politically stable. And then there are the cultural tensions, some of which go back centuries: Americans will arrive with their gee-whiz slang at a crucial front line between Indo-European languages — including Kurdish — and Semitic languages — which include Arabic and Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus). This language border has also been a religious border since antiquity — when Babylonians (Semitic and Polytheist), were opposed to Persians (Indo-Europeans and Zoroastrians). The linguistic-religious border remained when Shi'ite Iran separated itself from the Sunni Arab world. This absolutely crucial schism of Islam happened nowhere else than at the heart of Iraq, culminating at the battle of Kerbala in 680 AD. When this correspondent visited the sacred Shi'ite cities of Kufa and Najaf, religious officials, pilgrims and the imam of Najaf himself reminded that here — between the Tigris and the Euphrates — the partisans of the caliph and the partisans of Ali had shed their blood in the name of the Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam. The Shi'ite faith's most sacred sites — Kerbala and Najaf — are not in Iran, but in Iraq: a war that so much as touches these sacred sites will fuel the anger of Iranian, Afghan, Pakistani and Gulf Shi'ites to incalculable levels. George W Bush may find comfort in the fact that Christendom is alive and well in northern Iraq. There's a Christian community in every street of Mosul. There are Nestorian Assyrians — dissidents of the Council of Ephesus: for them, Mary is the mother of Jesus and not the Mother of God. There are Jacobites: for them, Jesus is really God but not totally man. There are Chaldeans (Nestorians united to Rome). There are Orthodox Byzantines. There are Armenians. There are Protestants evangelized by American preachers. After the repression of the Ottoman empire, many of these Christians believed European powers would protect them. In 1920, the Treaty of Sevres had promised heaven on earth to Assyrio-Chaldeans in a future autonomous Kurdistan. It never happened. Today these northern Iraqis are trying to balance their Christian identity with their Arab patriotism. Most couldn't take it any more and went into exile. The women in northern Iraq wear colored dresses and no veils — something startling when one learns that 1,700 years before the Holy Prophet Mohammed the veil was already compulsory in these lands, thanks to a series of laws attributed to Assyrian King Teglat-Phalazar the First. Now, the new American war is offering these people a stark alternative: exile or the graveyard. The Yazidis — the so-called "devil worshippers" — are in a complex predicament. The only way out for these Kurds is to emigrate to Europe, because their faith is simply forbidden: they worship a king who placated the flames of hell with the tears of his repentance. Meanwhile, in southern Iraq, the Mandeans of Basra will try to emigrate to America or Australia. For the Mandeans, St John the Baptist is the real messiah. They must be re-baptized every day in water — but Saddam's armies have dried their marshlands. Iraq is the land of prophet Abraham, a Chaldean. To the peoples of the Book, Iraq gave its myths — like the deluge — and also its laws: the Torah borrows heavily from Mesopotamian codes. The area also gave the Torah its wars — such as the deportation of Jews to Babylon. History is now coming full circle: American Christian fundamentalism, allied to Zionism, is reopening very old wounds. And just to make everything especially nice for our government-builders, let's not forget that, although worldwide, the Shi'ite faith (the ones who specifically don't like Americans, or non-Muslim in general) make up less than 10% of the total Islamic population, in Iraq, they make up 55% of the total population. (Not 55% of the Muslim population, 55% of the total population.) This region is about as stable as nitro on a rollercoaster. We need to take up France, Germany and Russia on their offers to help rebuild. At least then the USA won't take all the blame when this house of cards collapses. Sentio aliquos togatos contr read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]