APOLOGY? COMPENSATION? Are you nuts? How the heck do you "compensate" someone for killing their husband and children?

The US military justifies killing civilians by labeling them as suspected insurgents. These kind of "accidents" will continue until the US withdraws or otherwise redeploys its troops.

Its easy to read stories about Iraq in the paper and then turn back to your daily routine. Its much more difficult to ignore people like Ms. Salim when they're in your community. It looks to me like the US government is trying to keep the truth from it's own citizens.

Simon_Carlsen
What, exactly, is inaccurate about the story or the picture it paints?

I suppose you're talking about the last paragraph since the rest of the material is a matter of public record. Still, one can’t help but wonder if the response is an autonomous reaction to the fact that Cindy Sheehan’s name appears in the text.

You bring up issues, numbers (President Bush's estimate of civilian deaths from a speech in December of 2005 in Philadelphia) and percentages that are open to debate and question. None of these is treated in Benjamin's piece, which deals with one particular family (a family that 'was' decimated by US fire) and the plight of others in similar situations.

You may, and others will certainly respond to counter your claims, want to advance the Orwellian argument that the US is not fundamentally involved in the current state of affairs in Iraq. This seems a peculiarly inappropriate place to do it.

the old "shoot first as questions later".

small wonder so many of us are anti military when you hear stories like this.

anyone remember the FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENT where meth fueled american pilots killed our Canadian soldiers.

these are wars of colonialization ,not peacmaking or peacekeeping.

ther"s OIL in them thar hills ! and yosemite bush and his greedy bunch will soon be comming to your town too.

Jim Beam. A bourbon I've not tried. How does it compare to Jack Daniels?

And dead right, of course. These are all wars to recolonize the "non-European" world. (Though, when it comes to Canada, nyahhh-, it's looking more and more like we are the exception in that design-, looking more and more like a client/colonized state ourselves.

Now why would anyone be surprised, knowing what old Sadaam knew about his former US handlers, that he would have designs on building nuclear weapons? Why would anyone be surprised, in this repeat of the run-up to "Shock and Awe" that Iran is scrambling to complete nuclear weapons?

This current world of characterized by a US monopoly in Weapons of Mass Destruction is increasingly intolerable to everyone, outside of, and perhaps even including, a great many of their own.

If this country had any serious jam/huzpah, and capacity for making an "independent" judgement as to its own "national" interests, and the threats we face ourselves from this rampaging US Empire, we would already be seriously wondering about, if not working on our own nuclear weapon. And I ain't saying that is a good or desirable thing, but hell, the Star Wars plan of the US, that arises out of their Endless War vision of the world, is to bring down anything targeted at them onto our heads, leaving us rather than themselves a nuked wasteland.

Eh, sometimes there is a rational place for tit for tat thinking in rational contingency preparedness and planning. This current crew in Washington really are completely nuts and do not give a booger about us-, and understand only one language. And clearly it ain't English.

Their view of us is akin more to that of their sacrificial lamb-, just for starters in Afghanistan. And Harpo is walking right into it.

Incredible.

i am pretty sure that you have travelled this site so you know what has been going on lately at the temporary workers site with Colin/canada, running to Rocky/tanknet/united mistakes,and seeking help.

did you note the INSANITY !

THAT'S HOW THE WORLD TURNS.

no matter what country,the RIGHT WINGERS will always put their interests first.

Colin was a LACKEY for the IDEALS of some twisted FARCE.

a comedy of errors,typical of the gung ho morons that are patsies for the politicians...

this is tuesday...where are we invading and what's up for tommorow?i got hemmorhoids and DR.FEELGOOD is gonna take care o me...

someone is gonna make a lotta money and your kid just might be comming home in a bodybag to accomplish that feat...

say it aint so...

This story is nothing more than an anti-war puff piece designed to tug at the heart strings of readers while ignoring the bigger picture. Where was Medea Benjamin when Saddam was INTENTIONALLY slaughtering hundreds of thousands of men, women & children as part of his annual course of business? I can only surmise that the caude du jour previous to the war took up too much of her time; either that or she didn't care about the plight of Iraqi women until the media circus arrived. And it is certainly more fashionable to criticise the US rather than those actually responsible for in excess of 95% or iraqi civilian deaths.

It is people and groups like Medea and CODEPINK that would rather let millions be routinely and intentionally killed than risk the chance that even one innocent life may be lost through the mis-steps of war.

simple simon met a pieman
and that piemans name was bush
bush said simple simon
kiss me right here on my tush
and simple simon knelt and delivered
such as kiss that the world shuddered
and bush said simon

that was good!

you iz my kinda flunkie...

Simon_Carlsen

So, you don't agree now with what you posted above:

And since there's nothing in the piece about the points you're now making I can only assume you didn't actually mean what you said and the reason you're here is something else entirely. To advance quite another argument and make a completely irrelevant point.

Is that fair?

To admit anything else would imply you have no empathy for the obvious misery of the families the article discusses. Even George Bush handles the compassion thing with more sincerity than that!

However, I'm not sure that throwing a few more greenbacks at these issues is going to be enough to wipe the slate clean anymore.

Moreover, I'm not certain I want to read anything else you might have to say if that's the kind of moral point you're advancing.

Real funny Jim Beam. Perhaps you need another shot. You obviously suffer from bds like many others on this site. As Simon pointed out, where was Code Pink and all these other moonbat organizations when Saddam was feeding people through wood chippers feet first and his boys were operating their rape rooms?
Or when the Taliban was blowing up Buddhist statues, building brick walls for the sole purpose of crushing homosexuals, forbidding girls from going to school, women working? Nowhere to be seen as far as I can recall. I constantly see references on sites similar to this about how Bush is destroying American liberties yet as far as I can tell the only people in the US that have had their freedoms impinged upon are pro lifers who cannot protest near abortion factories. But Cindy Sheehan is a heroine for getting arrested regularly as she makes a living off of her dead son. Some hero. As an Iraqi friend said to me just prior to the invasion of Iraq, war is evil but some times a necessary evil. This is necessary. But then what di I know, I'm just an infidel from Oilberta.

Simon_Carlson

Its difficult to really know how to respond to a post such as yours. Wasn`t Medea Benjamin just reporting what these Iraqi women were saying?

What I find quite incredible from posters such as yourself..is the presumptuousness you all seem to
put forward about anyone or any subject that you suspect doesn`t seem to fit with your view. And seemingly such personal indignation! Are these insights garnered on C.N.N.? The Vancouver Sun?
Heres a poem for ya (Iraqi Poet)

America, we are the dead.
Let your soldiers come.
Whoever kills a man, let him resurrect a man.
We are the drowned ones
beneath the waters at your feet,
dear Liberty
We are the drowned.
Let water come. -Saddi Youssef

heres another... for what its worth

We are not hostages, America
and your soldiers are not Gods soldiers....
We are the poor ones, ours is the earth of the drowned gods - SAADI YOUSSEF

excerpted from "A War Against Truth" by Paul William Roberts

give it a read..

oilbertan
But, isn't that the dreaded moral relativism that you right wingers are always accusing the left wing of practicing? This article deals with the effects of the American invasion of Iraq and its impact on innocent civilians, period. If you and Simon want to make the case you seem so desperate to advance there are places to do that. Commenting on this story is not, in any kind of fair-minded assessment, the place to do that, in my opinion.

All of which oilbertan is, even considering it is all true and not more Yankee Empire bullshite, entirely a matter for Iraqis to resolve, and Afhghanis themselves. Many an Empire/Imperial mission, such as the US is on, has been masked by phony "humanitarian concerns" about "freedom and democracy" etc and ad nauseum.

(And the moniker "oilbertan" puts you about in proper perspective for the rest of us here. "Here I sit, gruntin' and hurtin', giving birth to another Albertan." by Shithouse Poet.)

The US has enough class, racial, poverty,regional,ethnic, and yes gender divides around abortion and gay rights etc etc, and religious loony divides still fighting a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life-, that it is really on no moral high ground position itself to be going around the world interfering and moralizing about the internal affairs, social attitudes and issues of other people's lives. Amerikans expect that the world will not interfere in their internal affairs, let alone foist their notions of democracy or proper governance upon them, but regardless of their internal problems and issue, to be left to resolve them for themselves, in their own good time. And rightly so. (How e're much we may tsk, tsk about them and their "inferiorities".)

Similarly however, do other peoples-, even though they may be fully aware of their own inadequacies. Certainly there is a growing body of opinion even in this countrty that is getting fed up with Empire interests, and the neoconservative traitors amidst us which serve them, instructing us on how we should organize and conduct our military, governance, health, international, public services and economic affairs.

The main threat to the peace and stability of the entire world, the independent and progressive economic and social development of everyone, from Latin America, through Asia, the Middle East and aye, ourselves in Canada, is the bloody military bullying, interferences and resources thefts of this same sanctimonious US Empire.

The US Empire holds no moral highground which anyone has assigned it. It is the main threat to the peace and progress of all nations. It is a global rogue Terrorist State that possess mind boggling levels of ALL means of Mass Destruction. We need to isolate and sanction it.

It is long past time it was brought under control, and set in its proper place, with its global military system returned to the last man onto its own territory. They are bloated beyond just fat economically, over populated, and unable even to live off just their own resources anymore. Time they dealt with all these issues, problems of their own creation, including enemies of their own creation, and stopped interfering, bullying and robbing the rest of the world-, especially Iraq and Iran, but us as well.

Iraqis and Iranians are not saints by a long shot, nor are we, but for sure as bloody hell, neither is the US Empire.

Open your eyes and pay attention to the real world, Neocon bootlicks. You do that, you may even come to be of some use to your own nation.

Simon_Carlsen:

On this you are right, insofar as many of us are guilty of not having examined closely enough, and severely condemned, Saddam's abuses.

Perhaps, had the USA put to the world the case of abuse in Iraq, and used the propaganda resources of the mainstream media (FOX?! CNN?) to "sell" an invasion of Iraq on those grounds, many global citizens might have agreed. But clearly the USA was never interested in resolving human rights abuses, or they never would have gone with WMD lies.

The world is almost always better off with one less dictator. But without Saddam, the scabs of ancient feuds have been picked, and the consequences of British-imposed borders and phoney unifications of tribes and ethnc groups under the banner of Iraq have been able to rise to the surface.

Step #1: free the Kurds.

grub
Saddam was OUR guy...
Who supplied him with the gas?

dude...when the U.S. decided they were better off without their "strongman leader" Saddam..they were going to do it with the Kurds...they were arming the Kurds..the War between Iraq and Ian started and ..whoa...he`s OUR guy again..so where did he get the gas or learn how to make the gas he used on the Iranians? and then the Kurds.
He knew the Kurds were now a definite threat at his back as he was defending U.S. and Saudi and Kuwaiti interests against the Islamicist hordes. He knew he could attack the Kurds and not a whole lot was going to be said or done.. (until he became NOT OUR GUY again) Somehow I don`t think Medea Benjamin had a whole lot to do with this scenario..i dunno maybe you could ask Donald Rumsfeld.

After the first "Gulf War"..Daddy Bush stopped short of Baghdad..he exhorted the Shia in Southern Iraq to revolt and overthrow the Evil man. They did...the U.S. then stood by and did nothing..ever see the films of the Iraqi tanks driving around with Shia hanging in numbers from the gun barrels? The U.S. cleared him to use his Helicopters!

After the Hungarian Revolution a lot of people in my area took in Hungarian refugees. ..Hungarian friends told us ..they were constantly
being encouraged by "Radio Free America" to revolt...the U.S. would back them... they did..the U.S. didn`t...left the populace to take on the Red Army with what they could muster...and on and on..

oilbertan?simon? you guys all sound the same ,you ask questions that have been answered time and time again.

as was pointed out before,this has been going on as long as the west has been diddling with the politics to get OIL.

you must either be to young or brain dead to not remember your history.

ever heard of the SHAH of IRAN...this guy was a big BUDDY to the OIL BARONS in the UNITED MISTAKES.the BIGGEST in fact...EVER!

then came the AYATOLLA KHOMENI...remember him ?

that was about twenty years ago...and in between that time there were more wars than you right wingers could possibly finance to get your oil.
so you picked sides like any good opportunists and people like saddam hussein became your gas jockey.

women,children,everybody and their infidel dog was murdered for tribal revenge...and everytime someone else gets into power...the same sh!t happens to different people.

and it's all because people like you want more than you deserve.you want cheap oil/gas,so you can RIP OFF the rest of us inflating the prices.glut the market and those prices you pay, fall...then you jackem up BIGTIME at the pumps...give us some crap about the cheap stuff is in the refineries...

you right wingers are all the same,yadda,yadda,yadda...

then again maybe yer just trolls from that military site

either way...you are poorly educated

mental midgets diddling murderous tribal cheiftans...no wonder everything seems vague to you.

Actually the Shah of Iran went to his deathbed believing that the British were behind his fall. And to this day ordinary Iranians believe that the British are at fault for everything that goes wrong in their country. There are historical reasons for this conspiracy theory, however outlandish and unlikely the claims might be for their problems today.

As for the Kurds, they've been abused by all their neighbours/rulers for years, including the Turks, Iranians and Iraqis, because none of them want to carve pieces out of their countries to give the Kurds their own national "homeland." Same goes for "Khalistan" on the Indian-Pakistani border, or for that matter, various ethnic groups in most of the countries in the region.

Thus the Taliban justified razing and executing non-Sunnis in the style of Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler. Taliban governor of Mazar-i-Sharif, Mullah Manon Niazi was quoted: "Hazaras are not Muslim, they are Shia. They are kofr (infidels)." This was taken as licence to rape and kill, and thousands of Hazaras were imprisoned in metal shipping containers (20-40 feet long, previously used to bring in Cold War arms supplies) where the mostly women and children were left to asphyxiate in the hot sun. For details see Human Rights Watch Nov. 1998 report: "Afghanistan: The massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif." It's bloodcurdling and it's only one story about the Taliban excesses.

The only thing I blame the Brits or Yanks or Canucks or any other country for is not intervening in Afghanistan until after 9/11. Although I think the Yanks and Brits have bit off more than they can chew and swallow in Iraq, a huge strategic error.

kurt:

There may well be superficial merit to your position. But what of the meddling bob the cat refers to above? What of the artificial "countries" created by the Brits (and other colonial powers)? Have the Kurds, for example, ever felt as though they were Iraqi compatriots with the Arab Iraqis? Somehow I doubt it. What in hell are they doing lumped in with that lot?

We might also ask the same question of dozens of countries in Africa that exist merely because they served colonial administrative convenience. At this stage of the game, I suppose there's not much point in "blaming" the Brits except as they continue to support the continued existence of such national entities.

good lesson kurt.
colonizers always bite off more than they can chew because thats how they keep their economies going.
anything and everything that can boost the war effort is used and abused by the people in charge.

look at the money made in viet nam by the industrial military complex.

then look at the fortunes of the upper echelon people like RUMSFELD,CHENEY,BUSH,et al.

next time yoy see women and children being bombed and killed...ask yourself ,who made that weapon ? how much did it cost ? who are the PROFITEERS ?

then backtrack the money trail...from the banks, to the fabrication factories,to the captains of industry,to the president of the largest power in the world today,the good ole USA...

they may be trillions of dollars in debt ! but hey ! it's only paper,they can print as much as they want...

or can they ?

i mean who really cares about some tribe in a place they can't find on a map,in the middle of nowhere ?

Did anyone watch the 3hr documentry "Corporation" last night on Knowlege tv?
This is the biggest problem in the whole world & the reason for all the wars!
USA=WAR=PROFITS=POWER for the war mongering three stooges, bush, cheney, rumsfield

G West: I would put my abhorrence for the death of innocent people up against anyones but this is not a dick measuring contest. My point (I cannot speak for Simon) is that a) Code Pink represents the worst in the world (marxist/communist) and b) they only ever give a one sided, anti American slant (sort of like our own Francie Ducros and carolyn Parrish only dressed in pink). As my Iraqi friend said just before the conflict started, war is evil but he felt the cost worth it if Saddam were gone. I am never sure just what those opposed to the invasion of Iraq had in mind. Contain Saddam? What about the Iraqi people or was that just their tough luck for being born there? Yes, I know GW didn't invade to free the Iraqi people but I feel that if Free Willy could bomb the shit out of Serbia to save Muslims in Bosnia because the Euros either couldn't be bothered or didn't have the will, then saving Iraqis should count for something in the equation.
I feel badly for that woman and her loss. It is beyond words to think of sitting next to your children and see them dying beside you. As a parent, I have always dreaded the thought of having one of my children predecease me, under any circumstance.
Bottom line is that war is death and innocent people die. That is tragic but it has ever been thus and until there is no evil extant in this world, it will continue to be so. Personally, I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Hopefully in my grandsons but I doubt it.
Thanks.

oilbertan
When they post an article debating those questions by all means have at it. This article didn't, clearly, and Simon and you are both mean-spirited to use it as an opportunity to make a completely off topic argument. Simon was particularly disingenuous because he pretended to say one thing and promptly disavowed it in a later post.

I'll wager the average Iraqi, no matter what his opinion was before the US decided to take out Saddam, is far from sanguine about the results today, and, alas, we're a long way from the endgame. To pretend that the US is holier than thou in this case and a whole lot of other cases is just not sustainable. Spare me the platitudes. I'll bet I could find a whole bunch of peasants in Latin America who would debate these points with you a lot more vigorously than I have. The US does what's in its best interests, period. Clinton, Bush, Bush, Reagan, ad infinitum. My dad always told me they did the same thing in the run up to the liberation of Rome. The Canadians and the Brits did most of the fighting and dying but the Americans made sure they were in the van when they got to the eternal city.
The article was about some victims of a dirty war and the indifference of the people who victimized them, nothing more, nothing less. I don't care if the devil himself brought that to the public's attention, I salute whoever did.

it's typical right wing behaviour to disemble the truth and make obtuse the origins of debate.

G West: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I sometimes hope that the growing isolationsim in the US takes hold and they build walls and let the rest of the world have at it. Unfortunately the vacuum would be filled and not by some country as well intentioned as the USA, I fear.
I intend to ask an acquaintance, orignally from Baghdad, who I believe still has family there for his opinion. I don't expect it will differ much from the rest of my Muslim friends who like many commenters here profess to like Americans, just not Amerika and GW.
America is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But, as with capitalism they are the best that is out there and their position as the sole superpower and richest, most advanced nation is reality in the early 21st century.
Anyway, no intention to dissemble or to offend especially in view of the topic. As I said earlier, I do not even want to imagine this persons pain and anguish as words cannot describe and the pictures would keep one awake at night.
Thanks for the discusion.

my cousin is an american and his wife is a real amerikan...she is as right wing as you can get.

i can't split my love for them ,but i can distinguish their politics.they eat in my home and vacation here as much as possible.
i love them dearly...but they both have different ideals than me...

when they are at home and i am visiting,i am the Canuck Lefty,the weird one.

so i don't think they kill women and children,but the people that they vote into power ?

that's another story and the politics go from,American to Amerikan to AMERIKAN .

see some of us can differentiate .

oilbertan
No offence. And no offence to any Americans either. I don't think though, when it comes to nations that best/worst is a very useful dichotomy and I think that's where we all get into trouble. Nations are, now and always, aggregations of individuals who, taken on their own will exhibit a wide range of qualities from good to bad over time and in different circumstances. The problems start when anyone, you, me, whoever - assigns personal characteristics to those collections and the institutions which become their government and decides that one is better than another is.
It's true to say that America is the most powerful current aggregation when measured in many ways; to conclude that its power necessarily makes it the 'best' is where one gets into trouble and where I think we might, as you've seen, disagree. Therefore, I think America does many things well and some things abominably - just like Canada, and Sweden, Great Britain and, well, you get the point. Even with respect to your assertion about 'advanced' I think you could run into some controversy: How advanced is a nation with the wealth America has when it handles justice issues so ineptly that more than 2 million of its citizens are behind bars at this very moment? How can an nation as advanced and successful as America need to rely upon an underclass of millions of illegal or undocumented workers to supplement its own workforce? How is it possible that most personal bankruptcies in the US are the result of individuals and families who are unable to recover from the costs of catastrophic illness?
Even in terms of advanced scientific education, many nations now exceed the Americans in terms of their excellence and achievement. So, no, I don't agree America is the most advanced nation in the early 21st century and, with a national debt of roughly double Canada's on a per capita basis, it's not even as solvent.
So, there you go, no hard feelings. I could say a lot more but that might be piling on, cheers!

I read that Rumsfeld announced this morning that, if sectarian violence errupts into a civil war in Iraq (open question as to when we'll know that has happened but, I digress) that it will be the responsibility of the Iraqi security forces and police to lead the charge and deal with it. Does that sound like an exit strategy to you?

From another story in the same paper (NYTimes) comes this little gem taken from a State Department report on Iraq :

Feeling better yet?

Grub
Present day Iran and Iraq are the descendants of the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire (who’s proper name escapes me at the moment)

Here is a quote to set the historical context:

Britain as the world’s superpower at the time was asked to intercede as a mediator in the dispute in 1821, this is where their influence in the region began. Needless to say Oil was not much of an issue back then.

It was the same area in question that the Iran-Iraq

bugger! hit the wrong key

anyways: That the Iran-Iraq war was started for, this war caused approx. 1.2 million deaths on both sides.

Bob
I looked at the UN Security Council reports and the “Chemical and biological” weapons that the “US sold to Iraq” were commercially available dual use products for agricultural purposes and the quantities were not large. The US could be criticized for not preventing the sale, but I not sure that anyone at the time believed that Saddam would use them for combat. The gas was first used to repel the Iranian suicide human wave attacks (It was a very brutal war)

Robert Fisk on The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle
East
Date: Saturday April 1, 2006
Doors open at 7 pm
Location: St. Andrew's-Wesley church, 1022 Nelson Avenue (corner Burrard)
Suggested Donation: $5-20. All welcome.
grub

Saladin was a Kurd
Who knows?

Colin: Good research..have you researched the Russian
"sunfire cruise missile" which Iran now has.. if you`ve been through the strait of Hormuz..you`ll know how narrow it is at the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman. If you sank one Tanker or an Aircraft Carrier in the Strait ..the U.S. and Brits. would be sealed off in Iraq.. not to mention the flow of Oil and what that would mean for the World Economy. As you know..the Russians could no longer compete with the West with conventional weaponry and put their focus on Rocketry. The Sunfire apparently is a result...supposedly it makes the "Exocet" look like a bottlerocket in comparison. I suspect they were showcasing the sunfire to the Chinese military during "Naval manouvres " at which the Chinese were guests when the U.S. sub took out the mighty Kursk. The Chinese now have the sunfire as do the Iranis.
Who can blame the Iranis for wanting nukes? Its kept Dear Leader junior in business for awhile.
Peace Out
bob

bob the cat

Fisk isn't coming to Victoria is he, bob? Maybe you haven't heard.

MY wife wanted a “Muslim” name for our kid if it was a boy, I did not want a “traditional Muslim name” as it would be a hindrance and limitation on him. So we settled on “Saladin, Richard” (and last name). We had a girl and named her after the mothers.

Most Muslims are unaware that Saladin was a Kurd, which I find amusing.

I will read up on the missile, likely a improvemnet on the Chinese Silkworm.

G
Haven`t heard `bout Victoria...if`n I do I`ll surely let you know
bob

Colin...You have a son named SALADIN! Wonderful!

I loved the line in "Kingdom of Heaven" where the Knight (grasshopper) says to Saladin(Master).." And what IS Jerusalem..and Saladin turns and says smiling ..and with a shrug.."Nothing" turns to walk away..stops,turns and smiling says...and it is Everything"
bob

Bob
Sorry, I wanted to name my son Saladin, Richard (referring to Richard the Lion hearted, adversaries that held each other in great respect)

But we ended up having a daughter so we named her after my wife’s mom Lalia (an Arabic name)

Bob
It took me (with some help) a bit to find as it is called the Sunburn. Here is a couple of links.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2005.htm

This one claims they have a defence

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

This one has an interesting theory which I Don’t agree with

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Ignores the fact that Iran’s oil infrastructure would also be cut off if the straits were closed off and that it’s Northern facilities are also vulnerable. The population of Iran is restless and does not really support the Ayatollahs. The population also remembers clearly the Iran-Iraq war and is not interested in another large scale conflict. Added to this is that Iran’s currency reserve is estimated to be between 30-50 billion dollars and is not enough to sustain it for long.

There is a fine line of military action open to the US, small pin pricks that will cause a tit for tat situation, but certainly Iran fears economic sanctions even more, mainly for internal reason. In fact creating a greater external threat is almost critical to their hold on power.

colin:
sorry bout that..I wasn`t sure afterwards if I had got the name right...I looked up Sunfire as I called it and..nada..I was scratching my head trying to remember the name..I knew it was sun something...sunburn!...dumb name.
I figured Richard was LionHeart...I`m not really a Lionheart fan..I liked Richard Harris` portrayal of Richard in "Robin and Marion" Sean Connery as Robin Hood..Audrey Hepburn as Marion and the great Robert Shaw as the nasty olde Sherrif of Nottingham (in the end he gives Robin Quarter..and Robin kills him..and a shortwhile later Robin is poisoned by Marion while recovering from his wounds at the abbey where shes a nun..he`d started talking about getting the old gang again..gettin` it goin` the merrye men..the ones who weren`t in the olde folkes home. Realizing he won`t let it go..she poisons him... The film was actually about growing olde. thanks for the links..lets hope Gaffneys theory is just him trying to pose a worst case scenario alarm (Little Big Horn) but it was a damn good article.
I agree the Irani people are tired of War..and the Mullahs..their overthrow (revolution?) of the Shah was very quickly hijacked by the fundies but as usual i don`t know that they`ll have much say in the matter( the people)..as far as currency reserves and oil supplies i can`t see a very long conflict in any event..if Israel or the U.S. or both attack Iran..will Sahdr and his Medhi army then join with the Sunni insurgency against the U.S. in Iraq? I think thats why the U.S. let Saddam put down the Shia after the 1st gulf War..they saw the Iran connection of course.
The speculation on the Russians by Gaffney to me is way off base..the Russians have spoken up in support of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan..but then..they do regard us differently than the U.S. Revenge? Naaa

I read an article by an Afghan woman who said actually life in Kabul..with the Najibullah Communists (Soviets) wasn`t all that bad. The girls were in schools..they had theatres and libraries..people gathered freely..strolled the boulevards on those warm Afghan nights. sidewalk cafes.. markets..the women didn`t have to wear those blankets on their heads..
I don`t think they`re "creating" an external threat..the threat is very real. Khameini (sp) has come out against that wingnut prime minister who made all the ridiculous statements
but it got very very little coverage in the Western Press.

That was incoherent, bob.

Christopher Hitchen's latest column on Iran, on the other hand, was excellent.

incoherent! I thought it lucid as hell

It was a tad weird Kurt I agree..sort of stream of conciousness bafflegab..

Hitchins` column? Atlantic Monthly? Is it online?

Hitchins is a Trot..interesting that Wolfowitz and Perle and some of the other neo-cons grew up in Troskyite environments.

Kurt:
Hitchins article in Slate was very good ..would have to agree with him totally...some really excellent ideas ...though you`ll never see Air Force One with Bush on board landing in Tehran.

Good to see Hitchins writing so well again I thought he had gone a little off the rails with Iraq.

Bob
You are right that life for woman actually did improve under the Russian backed rule, as they were secular and strong enough to keep the fundamentalist down. Whatever happens the religious conservatives will hold power there for the next generation at least, the important thing now is to keep the girls schools open so more can receive education and start the process of improving rights throughout Afghanistan.

right on...

the real problem is Pakistan...and the House of Saud in Arabia.

I was in Pakistan ..quite a few years ago...the poverty was absolutely mind boggling..i still shake my head... desperation creates fertile ground for extremism..they`ve nothing to lose.

Bob the Cat, Colin, Kurt
Mostly good sense from Christopher Hitchens on Iran.

Time will tell if it is wishful thinking.

On the other hand, his suggestion that some sort of rapprochement on the nuclear issue might eventually induce Iran to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Pact seems a very long shot given the deal Bush has just done with India. Facilitating further renewed nuclear cooperation with Delhi absent an Indian signature on the same document isn't much of an inducement.

In fact, it may well turn out to be destabilizing since the State Department apparently has a short memory about the peaceful character of Indian democracy given some of the saber rattling that the previous fundamentalist Hindu Prime Minister indulged in. A crisis in the subcontinent may be a lot closer to the surface than that globalizing force of nature Thomas Friedman would like to admit. Pakistan is far too big a wild card in the equation for anyone to put on rose coloured glasses for some time yet.

The world is, willy nilly, moving closer to a time where widespread nuclear gamesmanship is more of a probability than a distant possibility and that, no matter how positive a spin you put on things, can't be good.

It's interesting that Hitchens now seems to be preaching a similar sort of pragmatism to what he so roundly and justly, in my opinion, excoriated Kissinger for practicing - at least on the nuclear issue. He’d deny that, of course, with his usual delightful vehemence.

The observation that the Israeli air force might not be able to force the gambit the way it did in Iraq with the Osirak strike doesn't mean, I'd suggest, the IDF doesn't have a practical plan for Iran.

No luck yet on the Orwell citation about the anger of the right.

Is there a connection between Leon Trotsky and Paul Wolfowitz?

posted to marxmail.org on June 10, 2003

(Jeet Heer is a Canadian journalist, who compared Trotsky to Paul Wolfowitz
in a National Post article recently. These are comments on selected
paragraphs from his piece that can be read in its entirety at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=EC4AD553-8A1D-4324-8D37-A99B2DFF9F85)
[This link probably doesn't work any more.]

JEET HEER: As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky,
consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East
crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply
shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International.

In seeking advice about Iraqi society, members of the Bush administration
(notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick
Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya, an
Iraqi-American intellectual whose book The Republic of Fear is considered
to be the definitive analysis of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule.

As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is "known to veterans
of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth
International." When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of
authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential
in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist
policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited
into the White House as an ad hoc consultant.

COMMENT: If Makiya's "Republic of Fear" has anything to do with Trotskyism,
except the fact that the author spent some time in the movement as a youth,
then one presumes that Saul Bellow's racist screed "Mr. Sammler's Planet"
must also be linked with Leon Trotsky as well, since Bellow also spent a
brief time in the Trotskyist movement. For that matter, one might link
orthodox Judaism with Trotskyism since Isaac Deutscher and I were both bar
mitzvahed and ate kosher through adolescence.

Other than the fact that Kanan Makiya spent five minutes or so in the
Fourth International, there is absolutely nothing to link him to the
intellectual and political traditions represented by Leon Trotsky. Consider
the interview he gave to an Argentine journalist on September 23, 1938 in
which he defended a "fascist" Brazil against a "democratic" Great Britain?

>>In order to understand correctly the nature of the coming events we must
first of all reject ... the false ... theory that the coming war will be a
war between fascism and "democracy." ... I will take the most simple and
obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every
revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on
the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you
on whose side of that conflict will the working class be? I will answer for
myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of "fascist" Brazil
against "democratic" Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between
them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should
be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will
place double chains in Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be
victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic
consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas
dictatorship.

Or the letter wrote to an English comrade on April 22, 1936 which not only
defended feudal Ethiopia against capitalist Italy, but was full of praise
for the Negus, ie. Haile Selassie, who made Saddam Hussein look like Martin
Luther King Jr. by comparison, and contained the remarkable formulation
that "A dictator can also play a very progressive role in history".<<

full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/JeetHeer.htm

________________________________________________

http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130018

New Statesman Monday 13th March 2006

The new globalization guru?

Eric Hobsbawm and Jacques Attali

In the past week Eric Hobsbawm, the pre-eminent historian and avowed
communist, debated the role of Karl Marx in the 21st century with the
one-time international banker Jacques Attali. They came to some unlikely
conclusions

Hobsbawm: Here we are, paying our respects to Karl Marx. Jacques Attali's
biography of him, which has sold like hot cakes in France, is being
translated in Britain. I've only done the biography of Marx in The
Dictionary of National Biography, in a more modest way. When you consider,
it's really rather strange that we should be here to talk to an enormous
audience about it. One can't say that he died a failure in 1883, because his
writings had begun to have some impact in Russia and a political movement in
Germany was already in being under the leadership of his disciples. And yet,
how could he have been satisfied with his life's work? He'd written a few
brilliant pamphlets and the torso of an uncompleted major work: Das Kapital.
His major political effort since the failure of the 1848 revolution, the
so-called First International of 1864-73, had foundered. He had established
no place of significance in the politics of the intellectual life of
Britain, where he had lived for over half his lifetime. And yet what an
extraordinary posthumous political success.

There is no other case of a thinker who left such a tremendous mark on the
20th century. Yet, for more than 15 years after the end of the Soviet Union,
Marx was in no man's land. Some journalist has even suggested that we are
here tonight to try to rescue him from the dustbin of history. Marx today is
incredibly influential. I don't think enough has been made of the BBC poll
which named him the most famous of all philosophers. If you actually put
"Marx" into Google you will find that there are several million entries - in
fact, 39 million when I tried it last time. He is much the largest of the
great international presences, exceeded only by Charles Darwin and Adam
Smith.

How are we to explain this sudden re-emergence? First, I think, the end of
the official Marxism of the USSR has liberated Marx from the public
identification with Leninism in theory, and with the Leninist regimes in
practice. People have begun to notice once again that there are things in
Marx that are really quite interesting. And this, in a sense, takes me to
the second and main reason: that the globalised capitalist world that
emerged in the 1990s was in some ways uncannily like the world Marx
predicted in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto. This became clear in the
public reaction to the 150th anniversary of that manifesto - which,
incidentally, was a year of quite dramatic economic upheaval in large parts
of the world. Paradoxically, it was the capitalists who rediscovered Marx,
more than others. The socialists had by that time had the courage knocked
out of them, and they weren't particularly trying to celebrate the
anniversary.

I recall my own amazement when I was approached at that time by the editor
of the in-flight magazine of United Airlines - on which, I may take it, most
passengers are people travelling on business. He thought that the readers
would be interested in a debate on Marx, because after all it did seem
relevant to the present situation. A year or two later, when I found myself
having lunch with George Soros, I was equally amazed when he said: "What do
you think of Marx?" Well now, knowing that our opinions on various things
didn't agree, I gave a sort of ambiguous answer, saying: "Some people think
he's good, some people think he's bad," to which Soros said: "Do you know,
I've just been reading that man and there is an awful lot in what he says."

G,
I can`t find the Orwell either..

bob

bob
I think I said, somewhere on this damn site a few days, weeks, hours ago, - although not precisely and certainly not as lengthily as what you've posted in above - that we ignore Marx at our peril. The difference between state capitalism and state communism is really very small but you need to know Marx if you want to understand either one of them.
I did find lots of other interesting stuff of Orwell's though.

Have you read 'Burmese Days'? It's kind of a bible for the compromised, I've always thought.

bob,

The Orwell quote is from a Tribune column he wrote during the war, July, 1944:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:CNp0nTntm64J:whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440707.html+orwell+%22circus+dogs%22+%22as+i+please%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

In the same column he also wrote this: (which is just as applicable today... more so in fact...including here on our own home soil... and wherever there is "a governing class":

bob

Haven't been checking in at the New Statesman lately since I thought most of their stuff was behind subscription.
I found this phrase the most insightful, a bit past what you posted:

lynn
Thanks for that, It wasn't the circus dogs quote though that I was looking for. Can't say about bob, may have been the one he wanted to chase down. The one I was looking for was this one:

May well be a bob the cat original, if so, credit where credit's due.

lynn
Again, no wonder I couldn't find it, the general title of his Tribune columns (during 43 - 44) was actually 'As I Please' so the title appears scores of times in index of the collected works. Thanks again. Google rules!

G West
I think I need a compass... I've been away for a bit so landed on the wrong thread. No "circus dogs" in sight here. :-)

I meant to post this on the "UK Health Chief Quits" article but there is already a "closed sign" in the window of that thread for some unknown reason.

Still, Orwell's columns are quite an interesting read, aren't they?

G,
I apologize.. I couldn`t figure it out..the pissed quote is mine..wow compared with Orwell

i won`t let it go to my fuzzy little head

lynn..thanks from here too

sorry `bout those long posts..i`ll check out "Burmese Days"

lynn
I guess the "UK Health Chief Quits" thread was getting too rowdy for the Tyee moderators. Maybe some gucci government type asked it be shut down. There was some serious mockery happening over there and they don`t like being mocked. I apologize for my
part in the termination of discussion as far as other people not being able to post.
I`m outta here for awhile..if i were to post what i really think..i`d be put in jail.

Venceremos
bob

lynn
I see bob has straightened out the mix up re the origin of the Orwell circus dogs post - ie, on the UK health Chief Quits site. I didn't mean to be obtuse or the source of confusion. I still think that cat's thought about the meanspiritedness of the right is a worthy update on Orwell's reflections of a similar nature. I'm glad he owned up to it though, I was going nuts trying to find an instance where Orwell used the word 'pissed'.
Cheers

The following is from the Globe & Mail. While it's true (should anyone pass through these deserted halls looking for signs of life and read it) that the subject has hardly any relevance as a commentary on this story, it might still resonate with the lonely reader.

The general connection - refugees and victims - and the way a certain powerful nation appears to feel it is appropriate to deal with their concerns and problems - is obvious. It would appear, given the Globe story, that our ethically challenged Prime Minister has decided solidarity with the United States has become the appropriate response to their plight.

Anyway, draw your own conclusions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060311.UN11/TPStory/?query=

Bob
Friends of mine are moderators at another site, politely put it is like “herding cats” and when things get nasty, it is about as much fun as sticking needles under your fingernails.

G West
Supporting the “Right to Return” is code for supporting the destruction of Israel. So are we willing to say Israel should be destroyed? The groups that govern the Palestinians right now, will not accept a two state solution as the end, but only as a way to strengthen their position in order to defeat Israel completely.

Supporting the “Right of Return” actually is far more cruel than telling the Pals that they have lost and now need to rebuild what they have. The ME countries have encouraged the situation as it is for their own purposes and never really did anything to resolve the situation. In fact it is the west that does the most to keep the Palestinians going. There is no win-win solution here, either the Palestinians win or the Israelis win, no matter what, people will suffer.

Frankly I think Israel was stupid not to give the Pals a portion of the Sinai in 67 to the Pals in order to create a more viable state.

Colin
I know that! The point is that we should abstain and not get drawn into the orbit of being perceived as nothing more than a sycophantic parrot for American self-interest.
We are supposed to be an independent country but we seldom have the intestinal fortitude to actually behave that way. Lester Pearson, for all his goofy aw-shucks characteristics, at least 'tried' to stand up to Lyndon Johnson's bullying over Vietnam. He wasn’t smart enough at the time to recognize that the Americans had bought and paid for him over the Bomarac missile system and expected him to stay bought and paid for.

And they called Martin Dithers!

Do you seriously think Harper will say anything that’s at odds with American foreign policy beyond his carefully scripted response to the US Ambassador over the Northwest Passage? I don't. I expect he’ll make a side trip to Hans Island and escalate the rhetoric with Denmark next...when the weather’s better. For God’s sake, we’ve already sold the Port of Churchill to a Denver capitalist. Any kind of real independence in northern waters is going to be a pretty mild thing.

Oh and keep posted for sweetheart deals on the Mackenzie pipeline.

G West
I am sorry but will have to disagree, using the Women’s forum to attack Israel on it’s clash with the Palestinians is out of context and silence in the matter is viewed as consent by the rest of the world. Perhaps they should have been more focused on the extent of honour killings in ME countries or the plight of women being raped in Dafur rather than taking part in political stunts.

Colin
How can you possibly be serious. I didn't attack anyone. I think we should have abstained - as had been the practice in cases where the UN was being used to push a particular agenda. If you can point to a single example of my having either attacked, or agreed with an attack on Israel, I'll be pleased to withdraw this comment.
Here's what I said:

G West
Sorry I don’t mean to say that you attacked, but meant to say that people in the conference are using it as a stage to attack Israel for it’s conflict with the Palestinians, instead of focusing on woman issues. This is a very common tactic and a attempt to bring political pressure onto Israel to achieve ends that have nothing to do with women’s rights.

Colin
Thank you. Canada’s dissatisfaction with the progress the conference was making could have been indicated by abstaining. Such action would have had the advantage of indicating that we weren’t prepared to vote reflexively with the Americans on a subject that is, apparently, inimical to the United States’ strong and thoroughgoing commitment to the rights of women. If you think that the symbolism of moving our vote into lockstep with Washington doesn’t indicate a diminution of Canada as a really independent voice in an international forum then I’m surprised at your naiveté. In foreign affairs and diplomatic circles such actions are never without meaning.

Still, I think one of the most interesting things in the foreign policy field since Jan 23 is the way the PM has dominated it. I have to wonder how long someone as ambitious as Peter MacKay will be satisfied to play second fiddle to Harper's smartest guy in the room syndrome.

Gwest, no problem, but we will have to disagree on direction. Canada can vote no with a clear conscience because the resolution is outside of the terms of the conference and the diplomats should thumped the desk more about it. This is a common tactic international to use these conferences to scapegoat Israel in order to prevent the conferences from dealing with some of the real issues at hand. In fact I would bet if you went through the list of those voting yes that they have terrible track records regarding woman rights. Hopefully this will catch people off guard and start forcing some of these conference to do what they are supposed to do.

Colin
That's why the right thing to do is abstain until something positive actually happens. I don't disagree with your observation about the agendas of a some countries although I'd always hold my own judgment until I knew something more about the members of the committee and their actual positions. At this point, I don't know that so I'll abstain from throwing mud at anyone. I think you'd be wise to do the same.

America, on the other hand, especially with John Bolton holding the reins at the UN and George Bush in Washington, has as little credibility now as it has ever had in international circles. It's pretty clear to me that Harper's move from independence to accepting the 'legitimacy' of the American point of view is part of a carefully orchestrated plan of Harper's to curry favour with Washington and doesn't have much to do with positive moves in the areas of international rights for women. I'll believe that America is humming a different tune on that score when official US policy begins to recognize the needs of women around the world (and not just in the West) for things like effective family planning and birth control. And, when the US restores funding support for international organizations that are working towards actually alleviating problems and not just promoting a particular religious program.

The problem, as I stated clearly from the outset, is that moving from independence to standing shoulder to shoulder with Uncle Sam brings with it another whole set of dangers. You can end up, citing just one obvious example, voting for Colin Powell's trumped-up case of WMD in Iraq. Independence has costs; I'd assert it has benefits too.

years ago ,when rafe mair was still on nw98,he was talking about womens rights.well i phoned in and told him of a recent cbc show on which an american supreme court judge was talking about the abortion issue in the states and that ABORTION really was not legal,just ignored and that any REAL RIGHT WINGERS getting into power could really enforce those laws.rafe said that was utter bs and sneered,typical reaction from someone left out in the cold.

anyways,if you look to the south of us,what you see are RIGHT WINGERS going after those states with the easiest court battles to win the ABORTION ISSUE.so now you know what the RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN AMERICA HAS ON THEIR AGENDA.

SO ,looking at the foreign policies and waxing poetic, i would say,dream on if you think these women will be afforded any special interest rights(feminist) because with the right wing,women will only be given the rights to basic western ideals.work,education,TAXES.

little more than what they got already.

From "Foreign Affairs" Nov/December 2005 - "The Iraq Syndrome" by John Meuller

when the body bags come home it doesn't matter what your country was fighting for because the bodies are a reminder of the price you pay to enforce ideals elsewhere.

the baby boomers remember the warehouses that held their loved ones that died in viet nam and the money made by the unscrupulous who backed that war.

ideals are an easy sell til the body bags start coming home,ask any parent.