Return to: Home | Blogs | Richard Herring

39 comments from readers

Scottybhoy
19 December 2008 at 11:18

In our most recent For the Love of G...lasgow podcast we mused about why crazy Al didn't throw a third shoe.

I mean, Mr. Bush likely thought he'd be fine after two throws, because on the balance of probabilities the thrower only had two feet. A third would have really thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, or at least the shoe amongst the incompetent Secret Service!

Former Republican
19 December 2008 at 12:24

As an American, I very much agree. Over the last eight years Bush has made America look bad; white people look bad; the list goes on. Bush has left behind a giant cloud of flatulence. Bush was worse for America than Bin Laden and might as well have been Bin Laden's chief lieutenant. I have finally discovered a muslim Iraqi I can relate with and view as a hero and that man is Muntadhar Al-Zeidi. God Bless him, he speaks not only for Iraqis but for many Americans as well.

a.m.r.
19 December 2008 at 21:37

I don't suppose it's of any interest matters that the majority of Iraqi's supported the invasion and the ousting of Saddam Hussein?

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=22949

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/16_poll.html

http://tallrite.com/weblog/archives/july03.htm#WhatBaghdadis...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030924/a...

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=1100...

http://www.iraq-today.com/news/editorial/00009.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=ourWorldNews&s...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/international/middleeast/1...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5013506

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1139829,00....

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeast...

(Links from Mark Humphrys)

a.m.r.
19 December 2008 at 21:43

(Source of above links : http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.html#iraq.polls )

moira_moi
20 December 2008 at 16:17

Of course100% respect for the courageous Bush shoe-thrower Muntadar al-Zaidi. But the principal , blindingly obvious target of shoe-throwing - unless you want to stay on their payroll - should be the corporate media,especially TV who supported the pro-Iraq war view. Neo-Con Richard Pearle - remember him? - was a regular guest on BBC before the Iraq war. ABC News devoted 8% of air time to the anti-Iraq war view, the BBC, a mere 2%. (Even Sky News gave more air time than BBC to the 15th Feb 2003 anti-Iraq war protest in London) Without corporate media especially TV, the Bush/Blair Iraq war cr!p would never have been heard. Yet the corporate media have succeeded in making themselves invisible - innocent bystanders to most people. The BBC et al could have collectively informed the public before the Iraq war, headlined the statement made by Colin Powell in Feb 2001 that Iraq had no significant WMD.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5yvoIsnnE

Journalists especially TV journalists shouldn't parrot but criticise and demolish blatant lies. They chose for the most part to support them. The BBC loved to replay video clip of anti-Iraq war MP George Galloway shaking hands with Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war. But kept quiet on Colin Powell and his 2001 statement especially during Blix/Power UN talks Feb 2003.

So here's to taking aim with our shoes at pro-Iraq war TV stations / Newspapers, especially The Guardian whose headlines sounded the drumbeat for the Iraq war as loudly I'm afraid as the tabloids (except Daily Mirror) Oh and am I the only one to immediately think of the famous shoe scene in Life of Brian on hearing about the Bush shoe-thrower ?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWhAeDJ8uc

Lawrence
20 December 2008 at 16:42

a.m.r. ,

It's not damning against the Iraqis if they had initially

supported him. They originally wanted a unified and

democratic nation; and yet post invasion they have

been left with a nation in tatters, increased violence &

security fears, increased sectarian tension,

infrastructure control handed over to US companies

despite clearly saying they would not award

themselves contracts prior to invasion etc etc.

Initial support of the US doesn't mean the Iraqi people

have no right to complain if the US went and

dramatically de-stabilized the country .

Mark Humphrys is clearly pro-intervention despite

claiming to be pro-liberal, and his statistics will have

been collated with this belief in mind. The polls for

instance on this site paint a pretty damning picture of

US intervention and the cituation today:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Lawrence
20 December 2008 at 16:46

Obviously that is supposed to say 'situation'.

a.m.r.
20 December 2008 at 18:03

Lawrence,

As you say, most Iraqi's want a democratic and unified nation. The US-led toppling of Saddam Hussein brought this into the realm of possibility.

It's true that the US probably did too much damage to infrastructure, and they failed to establish law and order in those couple of weeks of relative peace after the invasion. After that, it was too dangerous for construction workers, Iraqi or foreign, to start the rebuilding work.

The insurgents have been fighting against the democratic process. Most of the people they've targetted and killed have been fellow Iraqis. Many insurgents came across the borders to bring the fight to the Western forces - they are not all Iraqi's, and they are not fighting for Iraq.

Support for the US presence and actions began to drop heavily in 2006, coinciding with the massive upsurge of insurgent violence by the insurgents, against Iraqi's and foreign troops alike.

There has been a large turnaround since then, though. Those who had supported the insurgents (who included amongst them many Al-Qaeda members) began to turn away - the insurgents were too violent, too vicious, too nihilistic - too much rape and murder. This switching of local support in the areas where they had once had support meant that the insurgents were left exposed. This, together with the increase in troop numbers and the eventual emergence of trained and not-cripplingly-corrupt Iraqi armed forces, meant that the insurgents started taking heavy sustained losses.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq have suffered an enormous defeat - most are dead, their infrastructure shattered, their support mostly gone. Saddam Hussein, the selfish, violent and feared dictator, has been executed by his own past subjects. A real self-determined democracy is started to form in Iraq.

Lawrence
20 December 2008 at 20:37

a.m.r.,

I do not doubt the damage being done by insurgents

drawn from homegrown volunteers and nearby

countries. Sometimes I think each new flare up or

conflict is just a new training ground for 'freedom

fighters'. I don't think the insurgent issue excuses ours

and the US's involvement though.

I still think that despite the good in removing Saddam,

the premise for war was a lie and the Iraqi people are

suffering a worse fate because of self serving western

interests. I remember staring in disbelief as the news

reported Bush's war rallying cry swing from pillar to

post with first Iraq's 'involvement' in 9-11 and Bin

Laden, then the WMD pretext and goose chase

involving the UN, and then finally removing puppet

Saddam because he was an oppressor. Yes he was

an oppressor but I believe with a faltering US

domestic economy, 'appropriating' new oil reserves

and billions on defence contracts the misdeeds of

Saddam were at the very back of Bush's mind when

planning the invasion.

And finally once coalition forces were occupy-I mean

liberating- Iraq it became very clear that they had only

really planned their glitzy shock and awe media

invasion, and not the harder task of bringing stability

and long term rebuilding goals. It felt like they were

flying by the seat of their pants the whole time ad

libbing with no forethought.

This is why in my opinion every Iraqi should feel

deceived and misled, and take off their shoes from

sandal to steel toe, and hurl them with all their might at

the George. W, Bush's smug vacant visage.

As we can not turn back the hands of time, I hope that

events in the optimistic outlook in your post actually

happens in the end now.

nawawimohamad
21 December 2008 at 09:52

There are many people who make a lot of money when Bush is president. Bush being an idiot did not realise that he has been used by the lobbyists and by his close advisors. He is a double idiot as being the target of all the blames and shamelessly accepting them. He should be pointing fingers. Anyway he deserves what he gets and anything coming in future including the shoes being thrown at him.

But the cruel treatment the shoe thrower received from the Iraq authorities is a sign that he will never get a fair trial by the Iraqi judicial system which is an adhoc and laws imposed on the people by the occupiers and a governent "appointed" by the US.

john
22 December 2008 at 08:55

Since his arrest Al-zaidi has had both his arms broken as well as his ribs. So much for Bush stating he hadn't been offended.

sweety
23 December 2008 at 03:55

Since his arrest Al-zaidi has had both his arms broken as well as his ribs. So much for Bush stating he hadn't been offended.

You did not realize Arabs treat each other in a sub human way then John! This was in the same week a an Egyptain Teacher beat his student to death for not doing his homework!

Tony Allwright
23 December 2008 at 07:19

Everyone on this page seems as devastated and miserable as I am that Saddam is no longer there to feed his people feet first into industrial shredders.

The Americans ruined all that in 2003.

And while the insurgents did what they could to overturn the American imperial adventure and prevent Iraqis from deciding their own futures through a democratic process, Bushitler's wretched surge has finally, after five glorious years of Muslim-on-Muslim bloodshed, brought victory - yes - victory in Iraq to the Iraqi people and to America.

So I am heartbroken to see Bush depart from the White House leaving behind an Iraq more peaceful, plural and democratic than it has ever before been, and with its oil controlled solely by its democratic government instead of by Iraqi big men, or by Halliburton or by Bush cronies.

It is a wretched example to set for the rest of the Middle East where (bar Israel) tyranny prevails. It makes me want to throw my own shoes at Bush. Bring back the despots I say.

gez pearce
28 December 2008 at 15:10

amr

1 million killed.

One set of ex US backed despots replaced by US backed despots whose police and secret service are as bad as the previous regime.

Iran backed Sunni regime.

Oil which was owned by the Iraqi people is now owned by US oil companies.

Nice bit of old fashioned imperialism

Iraqi trades unionists arrested for opposing this swindle.

No wonder only right wing extremists such as your self think the invasion was a success.

Also most Iraqis want the westerners out.

a.m.r.
29 December 2008 at 00:38

gez pearce, FYI:

Being against Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and hoping for democratic self-determination in Iraq, doesn't make one a "right-wing extremist".

gez pearce
29 December 2008 at 08:59

No but supporting right wing oil companies and racist rapture republicans does.

Also wasn't it people like you who supported Thatcher/Reagan, who in the eighties backed Sadaam and set up and trained the Osama style Muslim extremists in Afghanistan.

a.m.r.
29 December 2008 at 18:57

gez pearce: "One set of ex US backed despots replaced by US backed despots whose police and secret service are as bad as the previous regime. "

Are you sure? I suspect if Muntadar al-Zaidi had thrown a shoe at Saddam Hussein, he would have suffered more than broken bones, terrible though that is - given Saddam's past operating patterns, al-Zaidi's life, and the lives of his family and possibly entire clan or village may well have been forfeit.

"Oil which was owned by the Iraqi people is now owned by US oil companies. "

Again, are you sure? The evidence doesn't support your words. Iraq's oil-production is state-owned, and revenues from the sale and production of oil belong to the Iraqi people, to be distributed by their appointed government (although the Kurdish local government has established deals with foreign companies for production-sharing, without the approval of the central government).

The Iraqi government is tendering bids from a set of international oil companies, not just the U.S.

On the whole, they are moving away from production-sharing eg. "In September 2008, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al Shahristani announced that a 1997 contract signed by the Saddam Hussein regime and China National Petroleum Corporation to develop the Al Ahdab oil field in Wasit governorate would be transformed from a production sharing agreement to a 20-year technical service contract. In August 2008, Iraq ended negotiations with Russian oil company Lukoil on renewing a Saddam-era contract but invited Lukoil to enter a bid for a new service contract in Iraq’s upcoming licensing round.59 In a new arrangement, Royal Dutch Shell and Iraq have launched negotiations to develop systems for capturing and marketing associated natural gas in Iraq’s southern oilfields"

From the Congressional Research Services Oct.2008 report for Congress, "Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation,

Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy"

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34064_20081001.pdf

a.m.r.
29 December 2008 at 20:05

gez pearce: "Also wasn't it people like you who supported Thatcher/Reagan, who in the eighties backed Sadaam and set up and trained the Osama style Muslim extremists in Afghanistan."

Nope.

a.m.r.
29 December 2008 at 20:06

Just in case you are actually interested in some facts, gez pearce:

The companies that were qualified to participate in bidding for oil business in Iraq earlier this year are listed in http://www.oil.gov.iq/tender/pcld-outcoming.pdf.

As you can see, one-fifth are American.

Breakdown by country:

7 American, 4 Chinese, 4 Japanese, 3 British, 2 Russian, 2 Australian, 2 Italian, 1 Korean, 1 Danish, 1 Canadian, 1 Indian, 1 Malaysian, 1 Indonesian, 1 Spanish, 1 Dutch, 1 Norweigian, 1 French, 1 German

gez pearce
30 December 2008 at 05:10

But they are all foreign.

Oil money going out of Iraq and still 1/5 th are American. So 1/5 of money is still going to US companies. Most of the companies are still American.

Also what about the construction company contracts. 75% of the contracts to US companies.

Wonderful, US planes blow up a bridge and then you get the poor Iraqis to pay for the rebuilding.

Even the Nazis would be proud of that one.

gez pearce
30 December 2008 at 05:37

"The Iraqi government is tendering bids from a set of international oil companies, not just the U.S."

Because it is puppet government.

Also amr old boy

Many human rights organisations are very concerned about the Iraqi security services.

The US have 16, 000 illegal prisoners which they will not hand over to the Iraqis because of fear of torture and mass executions.

I do apologize for accusing you of being a Thatcherite / Reaganite in the eighties. But many involved in the Iraq invasion were.

What were your politics of that era ?

a.m.r.
30 December 2008 at 18:36

gez pearce, 1/5th being American surely does not equal "most are American", yet you make both statements in the same paragraph. ??

Also, we haven't mentioned the Iraqi state-owned oil companies, such as Iraq National Oil Company and the North Oil Company, which did not need to enter the bidding process. So they're not all foreign.

The Iraqis unfortunately don't currently have the technical skills and resources to build oil drilling, pumping and refining stations - not many countries in the world do. They need the involvement of foreign companies if they wish to profit from their oil resources. The same lack of skills and resources applies to areas such as power generation, water treatment, and so on.

Also, as mentioned earlier, the Iraqi government appears to be moving away from production-sharing deals with foreign oil companies, towards more service-based contracts. ie. they are aiming to maximise their take of the oil sales and exports.

So your statement that "Oil which was owned by the Iraqi people is now owned by US oil companies" strikes me as being very inaccurate.

Certainly you don't provide any evidence to back it up, and the evidence that I've been able to find contradicts it. Perhaps it's a prediction that you're making?

a.m.r.
30 December 2008 at 19:41

re: Thatcher/Reagan

I was still a pre-teen when Thatcher's Conservatives were elected. I was more or less completely politically oblivious throughout (although I did notice how politicians always avoided answering the questions on TV and radio). Most of my political education at the time came from watching Spitting Image and the Young Ones.

More seriously, I think Thatcher got many things right (secret ballots, for example), but I found her support for regimes like Pinochet's unacceptable.

In general, the 'Kirkpatrick' doctrine of supporting right-wing authoritarian dictatorships over left-wing totalitarian states or dictatorships was troubling, but to be fair, I'm not sure what I would have suggested, had I been in their place.

gnuneo
30 December 2008 at 22:19

"1/5th being American surely does not equal "most are American", yet you make both statements in the same paragraph. ??"

just because US companies only account for 1/5 of bidders, does not mean they will only win 1/5 of the auction.

"The Iraqis unfortunately don't currently have the technical skills and resources to build oil drilling, pumping and refining stations - not many countries in the world do. They need the involvement of foreign companies if they wish to profit from their oil resources. The same lack of skills and resources applies to areas such as power generation, water treatment, and so on."

they DID have - until the West (led by the US) placed sanctions upon the Iraqi people for rising up against Saddam. Btw, the prevention of supplies for water treatment plants is a serious violation of international law - especially as it was the Allies that destroyed them deliberately in the first place!

"On the whole, they are moving away from production-sharing eg. "In September 2008, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al Shahristani announced that a 1997 contract signed by the Saddam Hussein regime and China National Petroleum Corporation to develop the Al Ahdab oil field in Wasit governorate would be transformed from a production sharing agreement to a 20-year technical service contract. In August 2008, Iraq ended negotiations with Russian oil company Lukoil on renewing a Saddam-era contract but invited Lukoil to enter a bid for a new service contract in Iraq’s upcoming licensing round."

i cannot help but note these renegotiations are upon the Chinese and Russians - have any comparative 'readjustments' to US company contracts?

there can be little doubt that the Iraq invasion and Occupation has enriched many a corporate pocket - and even less doubt that those very same pockets had representatives within the Bush Regime's Cabinet.

this war was NOT undertaken for the benefit of the Iraqi People.

a.m.r.
30 December 2008 at 23:06

gnuneo: "i cannot help but note these renegotiations are upon the Chinese and Russians - have any comparative 'readjustments' to US company contracts? "

The U.S. & U.K. oil companies were pushed out of Iraq in 1972. That's why there were no contracts to re-negotiate.

Russian, French and Chinese companies had on-going deals with Iraq, as they were willing to break the weakening sanctions in 1997.

gnuneo: "they DID have [the skills & resources to build their oil infrastructure]- until the West (led by the US) placed sanctions upon the Iraqi people for rising up against Saddam."

They didn't really - most of the technical work was contracted out to foreigners. Otherwise they wouldn't have had so much trouble servicing their infrastructure once the sanctions started.

gez pearce
31 December 2008 at 07:20

You make your point’s well amr

But my original points are.

1. 1 million killed. If there would have been no invasion these people would have not died.

2. Massive destruction of the infrastructure. Which the Iraqis now are paying US companies to rebuild when that money could have gone into education or health.

3. We only replaced Saddam because the West lost control of him. He was an US asset.

4. One set of ex US backed despots replaced by US backed despots whose police and secret service are as bad as the previous regime. The same police and security services that break arms.

5 Iran backed Sunni regime.

6. Oil which was owned by the Iraqi people is now controlled by US oil companies. Nice bit of old fashioned imperialism. For all the nonsense about control and service it is the US that pulls the strings.

7. Iraqi trades unionists arrested for opposing this swindle.

8. Also most Iraqis want the westerners out.

9. Also you admire Thatcherism, whose basic tenet is self interest. Altruism is wrong. Yet you try to say that the Blair / Bush liberal intervention is for the benefit of the Iraqis. No, it was in our interest to control the worlds second largest oil field.

a.m.r.
31 December 2008 at 17:44

1. Yes, casualties are bad. You're taking the highest estimate though - why not include the others? Low estimates are around the 150,000 mark. Most of the civilian casualties were caused by the insurgents. Also, during the last two years of Saddam's reign, the unnatural death rate was about half of that during the war ie. Saddam's regime was already killing its own people in large numbers. He had to be stopped.

2. Yes, they destroyed too much. It was quite an effective method of quickly defeating Saddam with few casualties, though.

3. He should have been replaced in 1991 at the latest, after there was no geopolitical reason to keep him there. And no, he should never have been there in the first place - that's not a reason not to remove him.

4. No, Saddam's secret service was much worse. How many bloodied torture cells were uncovered during the invasion?

5. Not sure what you're arguing .. did you want Saddam to remain? The reason that Bush Sr. hesitated and didn't push Saddam out in 1991 was that he didn't want Iraq to fall under Iranian influence.

6. I've just spent a couple of posts pointing out the opposite. If you have any evidence that the U.S. control the oil, then please put it forward - the evidence I've foind is pointing the other way.

7. Horrible. Not the U.S.'s doing. Were trade unionists well-treated under Saddam's regime?

8. Well they're going - if Iraq is going to arm up again and attack it's neighbours and play host to jihadi terrorists once again, it should probably expect another visit, probably an even less friendly one.

9. I said Thatcher got some things right - I didn't say I was a 'Thatcherite'. Or were you not aware of any problems with the way the trade unions were behaving, including to their own members who dared to vote the 'wrong' way?

Gideon Polya
01 January 2009 at 00:19

Excellent article by Richard Herring. Muntadhar al-Zaidi is my hero and indeed a hero of ALL decent Humanity.

Of course it is not only rabid pro-Zionist , anti-Arab anti-Semite and genocidal Islamophobe George W. Bush who is a "dog" (to say the least) - his grandfather Bush and father Bush Senior helped kill millions.

Thus grandfather Bush helped Hitler to power in Germany (1939-1945 WW2 deaths over 90 million; see "Pro-Zionist Media Holocaust Ignoring. UK Guardian Censors Civilian War Dead on Remembrance Day": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26587/42/ ).

Bush's father and former evil , genocidal CIA head, President Bush Senior, did the Gulf War and Iraq Sanctions (1.8 million violent and non-violent Iraqi excess deaths, 1990-2003; 1.2 million Iraqi under-5 infant deaths: see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950", G. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ and http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ) .

George W. Bush is still engaged in the Iraqi Genocide and the Afghan Genocide and supporting the Apartheid Israeli Palestinian Genocide. Thus in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 2 million and 4-6 million, respectively; under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.1 million, respectively; and refugees total 7 million, 6 million and 4 million, respectively - genocides as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

George W. Bush and his evil father have a lot of blood on their hands - 9-11 million violent and non-violent excess deaths in the 1990-2008 Bush Wars (see: "9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity.: millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush Wars": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/ ).

Bush Administration complicity in the 9-11 atrocity (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22944/26/ ) would add a further 3,000 AMERICAN lives to the list as well as the 4,000 US servicemen killed so far.

Gideon Polya
01 January 2009 at 04:53

A year ago a former Australian student of mine, Allen Jasson, made headlines around the world when he was refused London to Melbourne air travel in the UK and was also refused air travel at Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne for simply wearing a T-shirt with a picture of George W. Bush and the slogan "World's #1 terrorist" (see "Aussie Airport views of Dubya .

Bush stupid & world’s #1 terrorist ": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12805/26/ ).

Bush is not only the world’s #1 terrorist ( responsible for about 1,000 Indigenous infant deaths DAILY in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories) and world's #1 war criminal (involved in 9-11 million violent and non-violent excess deaths associated with 1990-2008 Bush Wars: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/ and for the Iraqi Genocide part of which he was “shoed” by world hero Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi) he is ALSO the world’s #1 climate criminal ( according to Professor James Lovelock FRS only 500 million people will be left this century due to Bush-ite, vested-interest-beholden, climate sceptic lying and unaddressed climate change: http://www.businessandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20071... ).

PLEASE SIGN 2 important PETITIONS for the safety of the now beaten and tortured Muntadhar al-Zaidi: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-montather and http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iwffomuntatharalzaidi?e .

The whole World is watching the violent, evil, racist Americans and their cowardly, traitorous, Iraqi puppet regime who are currently holding badly injured and tortured Muntadhar al-Zaidi in highly abusive custody.

It is not Muntadhar al-Zaidi who should be behind bars - it is Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Dr Rice (aka Dr Death), UK's Brown and Blair, Australian Lib-Labs Liberal Howard and Labor Rudd.

Indeed in his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance speech the UK's late Harold Pinter called for trial of Bush and Blair before the ICC:

http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm .

gez pearce
01 January 2009 at 07:49

Again amr

You make your points well but you skirt over the deaths and the infrastructure damage and the involvement of US companies.

The reason we invaded was not for good of the Iraqi people but control of the oil fields.

Also Amnesty and human rights watch have major concerns about torture in post Saddam Iraq.

Also why haven't we invaded say Columbia, whose hilltop battalions have tortured and killed not only FARC terrorists but many trades unionists and peasants.

Because Aribe is pro US capitalist.

My point is that nobody wanted Saddam but instead of taking over a country why not just "top him". We invaded Iraq for financial reasons not out of liberal guilt.

The west picks and choices its villains.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They have atrocious human right records and have much stronger links to Bin Laden and his gang.

As for been a Thatcherite, you sound like one but I agree with you about the trades union reforms but she got those from Castles "In place of strife". Labour’s biggest mistake not implementing her ideas

As for the, selling off the family silver, deregulation of credit and philosophy of greed.

a.m.r.
02 January 2009 at 03:17

gez pearce: "My point is that nobody wanted Saddam but instead of taking over a country why not just "top him". We invaded Iraq for financial reasons not out of liberal guilt. "

The Iraqi's themselves tried Saddam Hussein in court, found him guilty and hanged him. In terms of due process, that's maybe preferable to an assasination. It also sends a better message out to other dictators and, importantly, henchmen: they're all considered responsible. Had an instant effect on Gaddafi too - one for free.

Unlike an assassination, a large-scale invasion gave Saddam Hussein time to get the word out by radio broadcast and newspapers to the many militias to cause havoc in Iraq and deny a victory to the Westerners. They responded, and have caused most of the civilian deaths that've happened. Perhaps this could have been avoided with an assasination - or again, perhaps an assassination would have a caused greater damage, a possible 'martyrdom'.

In any case I don't remember the U.N. or any major political groups suggesting an assassination. The U.S. apparently did consider it in early 2003, dependent on getting intelligence about his whereabouts and a 'clear shot' ( http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=19409 ), but it never happened.

The U.N. had been ineffective, issuing something like 15 Security Council Resolutions calling on Saddam to completely disarm or step down, whilst never coming to any decision as to what to do when Saddam refused to comply. The enormous scale of corruption in the U.N. Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq is further evidence that the U.N. may have serious operational problems. Finally, 3 of the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Russia, China and France -

had large ongoing oil deals with Saddam, something that may have inhibited their actions.

As to the U.S.'s motives, no I don't think they are all- pure (and they should be much more open about them).

a.m.r.
02 January 2009 at 04:40

gez pearce: "Also why haven't we invaded say Columbia, whose hilltop battalions have tortured and killed not only FARC terrorists but many trades unionists and peasants.

Because Aribe is pro US capitalist. "

Maybe another reason we haven't invaded Coumbia is that Uribe was democratically elected, and it appears that the Columbians are doing their best to deal with their problems, which are many - left-wing guerillas, right-wing paramilitaries, drug cartels, and corruption in government.

During the election his opponents tried, as you're trying, to link him to the extreme right-wing militias and their massacres, but the electorate were not persuaded.

In their previous choice of Pastrana for president, they had opted for an attempt at peace with FARC but this had not worked - instead FARC's operations of kidnapping, violence and extortion had risen to record levels. In choosing Uribe, with his record as governor of fighting successfuly against FARC, the electorate changed their minds and choose war instead.

By the way, FARC killed Uribe's father in his home in 1983. They've also tried to kill Uribe several times with bombs (which have ended up taken others' lives). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1996976.stm

In Uribe's term, paramilitaries have reportedly become smaller and less overt, but they still do operate with attendant human rights abuses. A peace deal in 2003 with the largest group, AUC, theoretically demobilised over 30,000 but the groups are still in effect. The new groups do not have as much influence on regional politics, apparently, and are lacking the previous organisation and ideological drive. It could be counted as progress of sorts, hopefully.

gez pearce
02 January 2009 at 07:57

Aribe was friend and supporter of Escobar the drug lord.

He has many links with right wing paramilitaries.

His troops kill many innocents. His hilltop battalions are feared

Just because a majority of middle class people believe in his genocidal methods doesn't make him right.

Hitler was hugely popular and voted into power. The German people certainly knew his views on Jews and concentration camp when he was elected for the second time. They were happy

There is something called the tyranny of the majority.

That is why we have international laws.

As for central point.

What about the dictator ships of Saudi Arabia, central Russian states with some very strange dictators and the actions of Pakistan in regards to terrorism.

Should we not invade them?

When do we stop?

Who decides who to invade?

Because they are US sponsored state tyrannies, they are left alone.

The trouble with liberal intervention is its hokum and hypocrisy.

We all act out of self interest, you Thatcherites are right on that assumption.

The war was not a moral war but a war to control oil supplies.

I have no problem with that but don't dress it up as the fight the good fight.

Too many children died for that crap.

Sadaam was a B******** but people lived an existence.

With good health care and education (secular and non sexist)

All your liberal intervention has done is replaced it with a US sponsored pro shria law government, who have the same police and secret police in place, who did everything they did under the previous regime.

Corruption in regards to oil smuggling and contracts.

A training ground for religious fanatics.

A vacuum for insurgents.

100,000's of innocent’s dead either by direct actions of the coalition or by the vacuum it created.

As for putting off dictators read the newspapers, amr there still hundreds of them.

Also I get the impression you think that human rights abuses are OK if carried out by a US sponsored dictatorship or democracy or by the US.

A little hypocritical

a.m.r.
02 January 2009 at 23:19

gez pearce, if you want to make a case for invading Columbia, go for it, I guess. You are aware that it will almost certainly entail killing a lot of people. From your comments, I take it that you're ok with this as long as the killers being targetted are right-wing militias (and yes, they deserve it).

I didn't know about the reports of Uribe's links to drug cartels - always glad to learn.

However, it is still the case that Uribe was elected democratically, and the elections were deemed fair by international observers.

The citing of democratically-elected Nazi Germany seems a bit weak - the reports that I've read of Columbia don't indicate any similar patterns to Nazi Germany's. You're holding up one democratic failure out of hundreds of successes. You may want to include the election of Hamas as another similar failure. Certainly, democracies have a much better track record of creating healthy states compared to say Marxist governments.

And of course, Columbia never gave any assistance to groups that went on to attack the U.S.

"Sadaam was a B******** but people lived an existence.

With good health care and education (secular and non sexist)."

I see - is that your summary of Saddam's reign? It almost sounds like he was a grumpy man who did the right things nevertheless. Torture? Kidnappings? Executions? Secret police knocking on one's door at night? War with Iran, 1 million dead. War with Kuwait, genocide against the Kurds.. What of them? People lived an existence, so all was well.

And you haven't sided with the U.S., so you can have a clear conscience. Good for you.

gez pearce
04 January 2009 at 11:45

gez pearce, if you want to make a case for invading Columbia, go for it, I guess. You are aware that it will almost certainly entail killing a lot of people. From your comments, I take it that you're ok with this as long as the killers being targeted are right-wing militias (and yes, they deserve it).

Now I didn’t say that did I. All I said was that it is hypocrisy to say the invasion was motivated by high ideals when in reality it was motivated by self interest.

The point is why have other cruel regimes not been invaded and who makes that judgment

I didn't know about the reports of Urine’s links to drug cartels - always glad to learn.

True Google it

However, it is still the case that Uribe was elected democratically, and the elections were deemed fair by international observers.

True but is it right that a majority of middle class conservatives have the right to be cruel to an underclass.

You and Stephen being Thatcherites, I suppose you do

The citing of democratically-elected Nazi Germany seems a bit weak - the reports that I've read of Columbia don't indicate any similar patterns to Nazi Germany's. You're holding up one democratic failure out of hundreds of successes. You may want to include the election of Hamas as another similar failure. Certainly, democracies have a much better track record of creating healthy states compared to say Marxist governments.

No but the idea that a democracy and a popular majority allows you to be barbaric, is not right. We must live to international laws and basic human right even if your are a democracy. It is not correct to say well Aribe had popular support, therefore he has the right to execute trades union leaders.

And of course, Columbia never gave any assistance to groups that went on to attack the U.S.

Before the Kuwait war, Sadaam was fighting for the US against Iran. In the states they use to have Sadaam parties

"Sadaam was a B******** but people lived an existence.

With good health care and education (secular and non sexist)."

I see - is that your summary of Saddam's reign? It almost sounds like he was a grumpy man who did the right things nevertheless. Torture? Kidnappings? Executions? Secret police knocking on one's door at night? War with Iran, 1 million dead. War with Kuwait, genocide against the Kurds.. What of them? People lived an existence, so all was well.

No but these things happened when we supported him. They only thing that changed is that he stop supporting western interests.

And you haven't sided with the U.S., so you can have a clear conscience. Good for you.

I have sided with The US. Like Ernest Bevin, who started NATO I have always supported that organization because it was primarily a defensive pact not an aggressor.

Now you have made some good point’s amr

I will not post again because we are boring people.

Stephen

I love your late posts

a.m.r.
04 January 2009 at 18:33

"No but these things happened when we supported [Saddam Hussein]. The only thing that changed is that he stop supporting western interests."

You seem to be arguing that this is a sufficient reason to be against the removal of Saddam Hussein. I don't think it is. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam gone.

I'm curious why you make no mention of Russia in your analysis. Russia also followed an aggressive strategy of backing dictators and terrorists, providing aid and arms to Saddam, Libya's Gadaffi, the PLO's Yasser Arafat (with their attempted take over of Jordan, resulting in Black September, and their annexation of Southern Lebanon - over 100,000 Lebanese civilian killed by the PLO during their occupation) and Syria's Hafez Assad.

Most of Iraq's armaments since 1950 have come from Russia, followed in volume by China and France, The US provided about 1% of Iraq's arms, the UK less than 1%. ( http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php )

gez pearce
04 January 2009 at 18:58

I have no time for pesky ruskies or chinese amr

That is why I supported NATO.

That is why I despise neo conservatism /Reaganism/Kirkpatrickism/ Thatcherism/Monotheism because they same disregard for humanism / human rights and international law as the reds.

True most of the arms came from reds but most of the money came from us.

gnuneo
05 January 2009 at 17:35

hey Richie, if you meet David Schneider at some point, i wonder if you would pass along an apology from me, for being so mean on NY eve? Although he was being very fake and unauthentic, i still regret what i said. Tell him if he hadn't been so annoying, i would have actually said that as he has worked with Chris Morris, i have respect for him. And he IS actually quite amusing.

oops. ;)

vijay
15 September 2009 at 13:24

its a good news. we should celebrate the day now