Re: Iraq
something in line with this: Responding to a recommendation that progressive tax reforms should represent a first measure to expand fiscal public spendingin a very poor and underdeveloped third world country, a government offical sitting behind his desk said that is socialist and as you know socialism failed. Although the person he was addressing would have to keep cool in situations like this, he answered and said do you the state you are in a success. that really pissed him off."Devine, James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the pundits on US NPR and Public TV blather about the possibility of Iraq being a "failed state" if the US pulls out. But what is the "Coalition" Provisional Authority but a failed state?Jim Devine Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
Re: Iraq
last sentence corrected: do you consider the staete you are in as a sucesssoula avramidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: something in line with this: Responding to a recommendation that progressive tax reforms should represent a first measure to expand fiscal public spendingin a very poor and underdeveloped third world country, a government offical sitting behind his desk said that is socialist and as you know socialism failed. Although the person he was addressing would have to keep cool in situations like this, he answered and said do you the state you are in a success. that really pissed him off."Devine, James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the pundits on US NPR and Public TV blather about the possibility of Iraq being a "failed state" if the US pulls out. But what is the "Coalition" Provisional Authority but a failed state?Jim Devine Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
Re: Grounds of Misunderstanding? was Re: Iraq Communist Party ...
Carrol Cox wrote: I mention this as a possibility, that would explain a good deal of the clashes between me and some others over the last several years. I have never _once_ written about what I think the u.s. should do. I don't think what I think about that is going to butter any parsnips. My focus has _always_ been on what an organized _movement_ should do to organize itself and grow. I don't know whether this clarifies anything or not. It is a harmless academic pastime to muse over what it would be nice for the u.s. to do, but it doesn't get us anywhere. What's the point of this movement if not to change U.S. policy? Doug
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael said: I don't disagree with you, but I cannot see why we should take this group more seriously than Chalabi or other collaborators. We should take them more seriously because --- unlike Chalabi --- they are people who have lived in Iraq under Saddam, (something which no doubt has informed their attitudes to the ex-Ba'ath elements of the resistance) and they therefore have a better understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society, not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support. Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
how do the communist live under the baathist? consider fir ins this syrian joke: when the syrian communist party was allowed an office, the sign on the door said 'the syrian CP, owned by the baath party" but on a more serious note the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is its inability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed. Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael said: I don't disagree with you, but I cannot see why we should take this group more seriously than Chalabi or other collaborators.We should take them more seriously because --- unlike Chalabi --- they arepeople who have lived in Iraq under Saddam, (something which no doubt hasinformed their attitudes to the ex-Ba'ath elements of the resistance) andthey therefore have a better understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society,not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support.Grant. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant: not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support Greater than that of Chalabi maybe but a negligibly small (or infinitesimal) ability nevertheless. Anyone who knows anything about the left in my part of the world knows this. The left back there is not to be taken seriously and this includes yours truly. Best, Sabri
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Soula: In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had the aptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him) who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English and Italian --- was learning Turkish when he died. I do not think the occupation forces nor their cronies enjoy a lot of support in Iraq. in old societies my friend anonymity is out of the question.. collaboration with the Americans here will not go away for centuries.. We will see. the place is older than modern imperialism. On the contrary, Iraq is a creation of modern imperialism. You said: the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing in severe crisis' is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so well formed within a class to break the old social bonds. I asked: What is a class without well formed economic interests? You answered: that is easy enough: there is so much economic instability in this developing market that taking refuge in precapitalist social organisational forms e.g. tribes etc is essential. Which forgets the fact that pre-capitalist classes often survive a transition to capitalism, utilising tribal links in support of their own accumulation. And that a modern proletariat -- compared to other Arab countries --- is relatively well-developed in Iraq, thanks largely to the nationalist development schemes of the 1960s and 70s. Agreed, the ICP would not be my chosen model for a communist party in the developing word; it was as prone to theoretical blindness and tactical errors as any communist parties during the mid-20th Century. But there is no doubt that they are well-organised and are probably capable of getting at least 10% of the popular vote. If I understand you correctly, the communists are a joke, the Iraqi islamists are incapable of wide support, and you admit that pan-arabism is virtually dead. And I wouldn't bet my life savings on the Ba'ath!!! So what do you see as the dominant ideology in Iraq? the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is its inability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed. Hmmm. In the first place, Arab CPs have enjoyed significant followings in the past; second, they don't need to become a mass party in order to wield the balance of power; third, perhaps the marginalised and disposessed in Iraq will look at the many failures of Islamism and nationalism, and will draw their own conclusions. regards, Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soula:In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had theaptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him)who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English andItalian --- was learning Turkish when he died."I do not think the occupation forces nor their cronies enjoy a lot ofsupport in Iraq. in old societies my friend anonymity is out of thequestion.. collaboration with the Americans here will not go away forcenturies.."We will see.We are seeing it now... we saw it south Lebanon.. we see it in Palestine, and we will see it elsewhere."the place is older than modern imperialism."On the contrary, "Iraq" is a creation of modern imperialism.it is indeed, but that there was 'bilad ma bain al nahrain' and that the daily conflicts in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon and the potential volcano of Jordan all attest to the failure of this creation calledIraq on daily basis and what matters is to prove the neocons and the Zionists wrong in the sense that you cannot beat the Arabs on the head without getting hit back because they are a 'lower race.'You said: "the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing insevere crisis'is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so wellformed within a class to break the old social bonds."I asked: What is a "class" without "well formed" economic interests?You answered: "that is easy enough: there is so much economic instability inthisdeveloping market that taking refuge in precapitalist social organisationalforms e.g. tribes etc is essential."Which forgets the fact that pre-capitalist classes often survive atransition to capitalism, utilising tribal links in support of their ownaccumulation. And that a modern proletariat -- compared to other Arabcountries --- is relatively well-developed in Iraq, thanks largely to thenationalist development schemes of the 1960s and 70s.After 25 years of sanctions and wars in which an estimated more than one million Iraqi died, more than 5% of the population, income was at 30$ a month for 12 years, can we say that there will be a cohesive working class that transcends the boundaries of old social bonds? well again now we have tribes and it seems the tribes have not been bought out yet.Agreed, the ICP would not be my chosen model for a communist party in thedeveloping word; it was as prone to theoretical blindness and tacticalerrors as any communist parties during the mid-20th Century. But there is nodoubt that they are well-organized and are probably capable of getting atleast 10% of the popular vote. I presume now the CIA will buy the votes for themIf I understand you correctly, the communists are a joke, the Iraqiislamists are incapable of wide support, and you admit that pan-arabism isvirtually dead. And I wouldn't bet my life savings on the Ba'ath!!! So whatdo you see as the dominant ideology in Iraq?I asked a similarquestion to a prominent Iraqi human rights activist, I said do you think that the present resistance could organize itself around a progressive social program? he said not soon.. let us wait for the phoenix out of the ashes."the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is itsinability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed."Hmmm. In the first place, Arab CPs have enjoyed significant followings inthe past; second, they don't need to become a mass party in order to wieldthe balance of power; third, perhaps the marginalized and dispossessed inIraq will look at the many failures of Islamism and nationalism, and willdraw their own conclusions. we do not have to call it communism we need a secular anti imperialist democratic and socially progressive movement that allies all sections of the populations under national symbols that relate culturally to each and everyone call it whatever. you go into an Arab communist party office during the cold war and you see posters from the soviet union etc..you see a clique of half-educated that consume pig and alcohol in a society where still the physical and the metaphysical go hand in hand..regards,Grant. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Sabri Oncu: It is neither up to the U.S. nor to the rest of the west to bring peace to our region My response: I wholeheartedly agree. and I don't give a shit to that so-called reconstruction, either. I disagree. The left anywhere can't afford to express such a deep lack of concern for a people who have been through it for so long. We might have discussions and disagreements about process undertaken to end US occupation and to strike a blow against US imeprialism. But I don't agree that it is ever a good idea, or maybe anything other than cynical, to say we don't care about what the outcome of the situation will be, no matter how far out of our control or from our ideal it ends up being. I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. Especially when, and I hate to keep hiting on this, many of the people I know who push that line, never have to experience the worse part. All my best, Joel Wendland _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
In response to James Devine: The irony of careerism is not that some people on this list have careers, are sacrificing their principles, or are trying to rise etc., but that the term careerist was applied to Communists (by this term, I mean people who are known to be or publicly associate with the Communist movement, not the small c). Outside of countries like Cuba or China where Communist Parties are the ruling parties, being a Communist doesn't help one's career unless I'm missing something. I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. You have a good point here, but I don't see a strong necessity of pointing out obvious differences between Vietnam and Iraq (the fashion of saying Iraq is like Vietnam was the point I made--presumablyt I don't have to quote any of the articles that appear daily on this?). And the comaprison has been prevalent in the peace movement and on the left. There's also the trick of not naming the people I'm arguing with (those who are only interested [in] seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats), an amorphous and undefined that western left. Thus their position doesn't have to be defined, quoted, or even argued against. I assumed that we are reading the same posts to this list and that quotations aren't necessary. Obviously we all (and I include myself) don't read the 40 or 50 e-mails that appear each day in our in-folder. I will try to be more specific in my future posts. In response, however, I find it interesting that you chose my post to make your points about rhetorical tricks as vague, combative, overgeneralizing, tricky rhetoric seems to be the rule rather than the exception on this list. I agree that I haven't been an ideal participant, but ever since my first post, I/my posts have been subjected to the very sort thing you have cited my post as being an example of--which is fine. Who am I afterall, right? Thanks for your insights, Joel Wendland _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel: But I don't agree that it is ever a good idea, or maybe anything other than cynical, to say we don't care about what the outcome of the situation will be, no matter how far out of our control or from our ideal it ends up being. This is not what I said, or at least not what I had in mind when I said what I said. If you agree with this: It is neither up to the U.S. nor to the rest of the west to bring peace to our region You should also agree with this: We, that is, those of us who are from there, will reconstruct our part of the world, not the U.S. neither the rest of the west. If we screw up along the way, so be it. I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. It is because you are a western leftist. The situation cannot get any worse than this. Whatever we do to fight the invaders, and it is my sorrow that at this time that I am not among those who are fighting, it can only get better. Whether the outcome will be good or not is another issue. But whatever the outcome, it will be better than what is there now. Best, Sabri
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
James Devine wrote: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. Sometimes fashions are right, as with the late-1960s fashion of opposing the US war against Vietnam. BTW, a relative of mine uses the same trick, dismissing those who favor abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. as fashionable. It's standard among academics (and I should know, since I swim amongst them). My response: I don't want to harp on this too much, as I agree with the general thrust of your post: I need to alter the style and method of my argumentation in order to make a better contribution to the discussion. I accept that. But doesn't the comparison you make bewteen my style of argumentation here and this relative of yours fall under the same category of rhetorical trick? When it comes down to it, there is no relation between the views I posted and the manner in which I chose to post them, to which you refer, and the views of this relative of yours. But by trying to draw a relation between me and your relative, you are suggesting that I can likewise be dismissed. Isn't that the purpose of the comaprison? Anyway, this repsonse isn't meant to suggest that your criticism of style isn't correct. Thanks again for your post, I'll have to keep working on it. Best, Joel Wendland _ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Sabri Oncu wrote: Joel: I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. I find it notable that those who spin this ridiculous canard _never_ quote particular leftists -- it is an urban legend, and passing it on without documentation is pure obscurantism. The point is an empirical one: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. This is simply a fact, left planning that does not recognize it belongs in the pages of _Alice in Wonderland_. Recognizing the fact has no relationship to the urban legend of leftists saying the worse the better. Joel is confusing the message with the messenger, and whining that the messenger is not bringing better news, when there is no better news to bring. Carrol
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Ken: Thanks for your reasoned remarks, which illustrate a willingness to engage with the present situation. As I've already said, my recent usage of imperialism was not supposed to be definitive, and I agree with your comments on this. THe issue is the status of those who side with imperialist occupiers when there are obvious resistant forces at work. Another issue is the extent to which the resistance is supported by the Iraqi people. As I've said before, it doesn't take many insurgents to make an insurgency, and in the absence of elections and reliable opinion polls, no-one knows what they think of (e.g.) Hakim as opposed to Sadr. Groups that side with the occupiers are prima facie quislings. Even if it is merely a tactical move it is exceedingly dangerous and liable to result in loss of any credibility. Agreed. But once that idiotic invasion opened Pandora's Box, Iraq became a no-win situation for most of the major players. A lot of people on the left seem to start from the assumption that there is never anything worse, more reactionary, or more opposable than imperialism, ignoring the specifics and never looking back; in some cases turning a blind eye to the deeply reactionary character of the anti-imperialists. Or asking what is the likely alternative to the colonial regime in question. If anti-imperialists had an inkling of the horror that would follow hard on the heels of the decolonisation of India in 1947, they may well have begged British forces to stay there a little longer. (And maybe some did, I haven't checked this out.) I don't think there's much doubt that a sudden withdrawal of US forces would cause the various resistance factions to focus their attacks not only on the quislings, but also each other. Civil war, in other words. Therefore US forces serve as a unifier of the Iraqi people: (1) in the perverse form of an increasingly-hated imperial army, (2) as a source of massive aid/investment, and (3) as an obstacle to a debilitating civil war. regards, Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: If anti-imperialists had an inkling of the horror that would follow hard on the heels of the decolonisation of India in 1947, they may well have begged British forces to stay there a little longer. (And maybe some did, I haven't checked this out.) I guess you aren't aware that the British were responsible originally for dividing people by religion in the colonies. You might as well ask the tobacco industry to spearhead an anti-smoking campaign. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Louis said: I guess you aren't aware that the British were responsible originally for dividing people by religion in the colonies. You might as well ask the tobacco industry to spearhead an anti-smoking campaign. Of course I'm aware of that. And what use would it have been to point that out in a discussion immediately prior to partition? The tobacco thing suggests that you don't seem to have taken on board the dialectics _within_ the capital class as a whole. In this neck of the woods, tobacco companies _do_ spearhead the anti-smoking campaign --- for some years now they have been required by law to carry anti-smoking messages on every cigarette pack, occupying at least 25% of the surface area. More radical suggestions are circulating: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9483627%255E1702,00.html. By the same measure, the global capitalist class should not be allowed to shirk their responsibilities to the Iraqi people. Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: The tobacco thing suggests that you don't seem to have taken on board the dialectics _within_ the capital class as a whole. In this neck of the woods, tobacco companies _do_ spearhead the anti-smoking campaign --- for some years now they have been required by law to carry anti-smoking messages on every cigarette pack, occupying at least 25% of the surface area. More radical suggestions are circulating: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9483627%255E1702,00.html. This is spearheading? I would put this in the same category as McDonald offering salad on their menu after years of protest from consumers' groups about the toxicity of Big Macs, etc. In any case, I am for withdrawal of US troops everywhere in the world, even if the restless natives decide to kill each other afterwards. For every Rwanda, there are a hundredfold slaughters that go unnoticed. Throughout Latin America for over 100 years children died of malnutrition, etc. because of poverty enforced by brutal dictatorships backed by the USA. Even when such nations as Paraguay were devoid of ethnic strife, there was a silent unannounced war between the rich and the poor. If dictators like Stroessner could not rely on US military muscle and economic backing, they would have toppled easily. That would have saved tens of millions of lives. Radical non-intervention is the best way to save lives. Everytime we rubberstamp some humanitarian intervention (scare quotes intended), the USA gets the authority it needs to remain elsewhere in the world. As Charles Brown likes to say, US out of Everywhere. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Don't forget Russian or Engels's even greater knowledge of language. Linguistic expertise seems more relevant to the list than the stand of a minor party with a rather strange political perspective. Could we kill this thread? On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:31:23PM +0800, Grant Lee wrote: In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had the aptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him) who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English and Italian --- was learning Turkish when he died. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. As to quoting people, isn't it possible to interpret or argue that a particular argument boils down to something, or do we always have to have an exact quote? This seems to be what Carrol has done to me in attributing a position to me and then repeatedly arguing with it. Rather my position is to support democratic forces in Iraq struggling for an alternative to the spiral of U.S. occupation and armed violence. Denying, that these two things feed on each other, in my opinion, doesn't help. And I think that saying one supports the uprising unconditionally does deny the consequences. That is, if you check the post to which I responded, the upshot of what was said, notwithstanding an exact quote. Apparently I'm held to a higher standard of discussion and argumentation. I have supported holding the U.S. to its obligation as a de facto occupying force (I just can't see letting the U.S. get away with demolishing a country for over 20 years and then going home without obligation), I've supported removal of the oversight of political, economic, and security issues from the U.S. to the UN, I've supported an end to the occupation of Iraq, I've supported the speediest possible return of sovereignty to a democratic government in Iraq. I know it is not the same as Bring them home now, no conditions but I have raised my suspicions about that position before. In my view, the situation isn't as simple as that. _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlbpgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. The US has created such turmoil that democracy at this time is probably impossible. From what I understand -- and my understanding is limited -- a democratic outcome at this time might be a Shi'ite theocracy. Another strongman might be able to institute some stability, but a bloodless exit seems impossible at this time. Of course, an exit is inevitable and the longer it is delayed the more blood will be shed. No simplistic easy answers exist. Getting out is urgent. If Kerry somehow stumbles into the White House and has to take responsibility for cleaning up Bush's mess, it will be easy to paint him in very ugly colors, probably ensuring a one term presidency. Or maybe, he will do what he says getting us in deeper in a further attempt to make himself into JFK II. I probably should have resisted the temptation to join into this speculation, which does not lead anywhere. We could also speculate on the presidency of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Can't we just drop this thread? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel Wendland wrote: Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. It's hopeless; forget it. No matter how many times you say you're against the U.S. occupation but think some sort of international presence excluding the U.S. might be warranted, he'll quote Kipling's White Man's Burden at you. Even if you quote Iraqis, like the two Communist parties, making that argument, or cite serious polls of Iraqis to that effect. Best to move on. Doug
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel W writesIn response to James Devine: The irony of careerism is not that some people on this list have careers, are sacrificing their principles, or are trying to rise etc., but that the term careerist was applied to Communists (by this term, I mean people who are known to be or publicly associate with the Communist movement, not the small c). Outside of countries like Cuba or China where Communist Parties are the ruling parties, being a Communist doesn't help one's career unless I'm missing something. and it probably helps one's career to be a CP member in N. Korea. miniature Leninist parties often provide miniature careers for their leaders. That's one reason why they cling to the party line or correct program so vehemently. I had written: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. You have a good point here, but I don't see a strong necessity of pointing out obvious differences between Vietnam and Iraq (the fashion of saying Iraq is like Vietnam was the point I made--presumablyt I don't have to quote any of the articles that appear daily on this?). And the comaprison has been prevalent in the peace movement and on the left. my feeling is that all analogies are wrong, though some are right enough to be useful. Iraq seems to be a quagmire, though there are a lot of differences from the Vietnam quagmire. There's also the trick of not naming the people I'm arguing with (those who are only interested [in] seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats), an amorphous and undefined that western left. Thus their position doesn't have to be defined, quoted, or even argued against. I assumed that we are reading the same posts to this list and that quotations aren't necessary. Obviously we all (and I include myself) don't read the 40 or 50 e-mails that appear each day in our in-folder. I will try to be more specific in my future posts. It's possible that some of the people you are responding to are on my auto-trash list, so I don't read them. Jim D. In response, however, I find it interesting that you chose my post to make your points about rhetorical tricks as vague, combative, overgeneralizing, tricky rhetoric seems to be the rule rather than the exception on this list. I agree that I haven't been an ideal participant, but ever since my first post, I/my posts have been subjected to the very sort thing you have cited my post as being an example of--which is fine. Who am I afterall, right? Thanks for your insights, Joel Wendland _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I wrote: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. Sometimes fashions are right, as with the late-1960s fashion of opposing the US war against Vietnam. BTW, a relative of mine uses the same trick, dismissing those who favor abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. as fashionable. It's standard among academics (and I should know, since I swim amongst them). Joel W: My response: I don't want to harp on this too much, as I agree with the general thrust of your post: I need to alter the style and method of my argumentation in order to make a better contribution to the discussion. I accept that. But doesn't the comparison you make bewteen my style of argumentation here and this relative of yours fall under the same category of rhetorical trick? When it comes down to it, there is no relation between the views I posted and the manner in which I chose to post them, to which you refer, and the views of this relative of yours. the trouble is rhetorical tricks cut both ways. Anyone can use them to obfuscate. But by trying to draw a relation between me and your relative, you are suggesting that I can likewise be dismissed. Isn't that the purpose of the comaprison? no. Anyway, this repsonse isn't meant to suggest that your criticism of style isn't correct. Thanks again for your post, I'll have to keep working on it. thanks. Jim D. Best, Joel Wendland _ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael Perelman wrote: It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. it's more than far-fetched. Any democratic force supported by the US -- or by westerners -- would be discredited immediately. Jim D.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
michael perelman wrote: It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. The US has created such turmoil that democracy at this time is probably impossible. From what I understand -- and my understanding is limited -- a democratic outcome at this time might be a Shi'ite theocracy. Another strongman might be able to institute some stability, but a bloodless exit seems impossible at this time. Of course, an exit is inevitable and the longer it is delayed the more blood will be shed. No simplistic easy answers exist. Getting out is urgent. Look. The only questions we can legitimately ask and attempt to answer are questions as to the policy of the (still very small) anti-war movement. Any attempt by anyone on this list (or in any other left forum) to detail what the U.S. government should do (either now or next January 20) is, I think, in bad faith, though probably not consciously so. It is in bad faith because it implies that _our_ (leftists) opinion will have an immediate (i.e. in the next 12 months) effect on u.s. action. It won't. In that context, the question of what should be done can only refer to what the movement should do. And the answer to that question is simple: any claim that it is complex is avoiding the real issues. The answer is: U.S. Out of Iraq. Now. No Conditions. Any other demand is academic in the sense of _merely_ academic, having no linkage to human activity, and belongs in the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Carrol
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Doug Henwood wrote: Joel Wendland wrote: Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. It's hopeless; forget it. No matter how many times you say you're against the U.S. occupation but think some sort of international presence excluding the U.S. might be warranted, he'll quote Kipling's What I'm claiming is (a) that all those nuances you and Joel talk about won't affect the world, because the only way we can affect the world is through mass action, and the only slogan for that mass action is U.S. Out Now. No Conditions. (b) that the U.S. government will _never_, in fact, carry out the kind of program you and Joel support. Hence you might as well be opposing troop withdrawal. And finally, emulating your habit of looking for the unconscious motives of anyone you disagree with, if I were to do that I would arrive at the conclusion that, without realizing it, you and Joel _are_ being affected by the ideology of the white man's burden. You really, again without quite realizing it, believe that Arabs can't work out their own fate without guidance from the u.s. Carrol
Grounds of Misunderstanding? was Re: Iraq Communist Party ...
I mention this as a possibility, that would explain a good deal of the clashes between me and some others over the last several years. I have never _once_ written about what I think the u.s. should do. I don't think what I think about that is going to butter any parsnips. My focus has _always_ been on what an organized _movement_ should do to organize itself and grow. I don't know whether this clarifies anything or not. It is a harmless academic pastime to muse over what it would be nice for the u.s. to do, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Carrol
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Soula said: There is now an effort from many communist parties to denounce the Iraqi communist party for collaborating in the invasion. It seems that their collaboration purposely or not with the US and the CIA goes back to their vehement fight against the pan Arab project because the minorities represented inside the communist party feared losing class privileges inside their post colonial countires if and when diluted in the Arab whole. This seems tenuous, to say the least; what exactly were these supposed class privileges? How were they reconciled with the basic character of a communist party? Or were they in fact _civil_rights_, which would undoubtedly have been diluted in a pan-Arab state, if -- for example -- one was a Kurd, a Jew, an Turkoman, Coptic, etc? It's interesting that _both_ of the Iraqi communist parties and the main Shia party still oppose the insurgency. In fact, the Shia party is now backing away from earlier calls for an immediate US withdrawal (see below). regards, Grant. Interview with Abdul Aziz al Hakim Broadcast: 04/05/2004 Reporter: Peter Cave Transcript CAVE: [...] As the leader of the majority Shiite party - the Shiites make up 60% of the population here - would you expect to be elected president under a full democratic election? HAKIM: In the name of God the most merciful - thank you for your question. But the main priority for us is the re-establishment of stability in Iraq, putting the country back on the right path, returning the country to its people and looking to the next elections. CAVE: You voted for the interim constitution which gives the right of veto to some groups like the Kurds. You don't like that constitution neither does the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani . why did you vote for it? HAKIM: Our disagreement is based on the restriction the veto will impose on the free will of the entire Iraqi people Giving such rights to individual communities will limit the freedom of choice of the Iraqi people - and this is the basis of our opposition. MUJAHIDEEN SPOKESMAN IN STREET: This victory is a gift to the people of Fallujah and all Iraqis. We, the Mujahideen of Fallujah, promise the honest Iraqi people - NOT the governing council - that we will liberate Iraq starting from the city of Fallujah. CAVE, VOICE-OVER: Even within the Shiite religious leadership there are power struggles as various clerics manoeuvre for a role in post war Iraq. The most important, the Grand Ayatollah Sistani- a close ally of al Hakim, has been treading a fine diplomatic line with the coalition. So far, he's refused to endorse any of the plans for a new Iraqi government. Their main rival is the outspoken young cleric Moqtada al Sadr. His private army has been attacking US forces, and the moderates are under pressure to take a similar anti-American stance. SADR SUPPORTERS SHOUTING IN STREET: Yes! yes! al Sadr! CAVE: There are a lots of private militia in this country - It's said you have a private militia, Moqtada al Sadr has private militias, the Kurds have private militia,- is there a danger of a civil war? HAKIM: From the beginning, even before the war started we agreed to amalgamate all the militia into security organisations like the police and the army. We are still trying to do that, and in our opinion this is a very important task. We don't agree with the militia nor support their existence. Therefore we ask for a change in the policies of the occupying forces in handling the security situation in Iraq. CAVE: Clearly there is a security crisis in this country. When we spoke last year you said the Americans should leave immediately - is that still your view? HAKIM: My opinion is that the occupying forces have taken the wrong political path in trying to fix this situation, and this is a dangerous issue. We have already expressed out viewpoint as the high Islamic council and as a ruling committee of Iraq - but unfortunately until now we haven't seen any serious changes to these policies. CAVE: How long should the coalition stay - how long should they stay here and keep the peace? HAKIM: I think the occupying forces should follow a correct security policy which will justify their stay here. I think when these policies are corrected peace will prevail very soon in Iraq. CAVE: How do you feel about Moqtadr al Sadr and what he's been doing over the past few weeks? HAKIM: We think that everybody should work towards the stability of Iraq and any actions to the contrary only help the enemies of the country, such as the followers of Saddam. And for all these reasons our principle is to create order in Iraq, hoping to create stability, because the chaotic situation is not to our advantage. CAVE: Just one final question - What is your view of George Bush's War on Terror. Do you think it is a war against Islam? HAKIM: For the moment we just think about Iraq and its stability - to salvage the country from this situation, to liberate it from occupation, and to return its
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
That is one Hakim down and probably another to go. that is no Shiite opposition, You have got to also realise that there is a stronger Persia-Arab divide than what shiism can pull together because the Iranians in Iraq represented the aristocracy and if one were to read behind religious symbolism or the class differences then the dispute within the shia clergy over 'wilayat al fakih' is indeed an Arab-Iranian divide.. that is why sadr went it alone and that is why sadr's father also steered clear from iran. the post colonial structures in the near east especially iraq were tailor made to preserve minority interests so that it would be impossible to develop a broad anti imperialist alliance. the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing in severe crisis' is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so well formed within a class to break the old social bonds.so it is no wonder that the Iraqi communist party was first to approve the partition of Palestine in stark contrast to broad Arab opinion. it immediately fell out favour. if you want to know how irrelevant are communist parties in the near east just read the proceedings of one their congresses to see how they paid more attention to the SALT one and two than to the every day problems and culture of the working class. disarticulation is social class formation in severe, very severe, crisis. and yes Kurds Assyrians Christians Jews did enjoya higher standard of living in Iraqbecause of ghettoism. something they do not want to lose pan Arabism the latter beingthe real enemy of imperialism because of itscloseness to the grassroots and because a bigger arab state is in itself the real danger.read to that effect the now disclosed state department notes on the unity between Syria and Egypt. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Soula said: That is one Hakim down and probably another to go. that is no Shiite opposition, You have got to also realise that there is a stronger Persia-Arab divide than what shiism can pull together because the Iranians in Iraq represented the aristocracy and if one were to read behind religious symbolism or the class differences then the dispute within the shia clergy over 'wilayat al fakih' is indeed an Arab-Iranian divide.. that is why sadr went it alone and that is why sadr's father also steered clear from iran. Don't worry, I'm somewhat familiar with Arab and Islamic politics. History shows that it doesn't take many insurgents to make an insurgency. So why are we supposed to assume that Sadr represents anyone other than himself and his vanguard? Or that he is more significant than those explicity opposed to the resistance? Why is it that western liberals and leftists think they know better than the opposition parties in Iraq? the post colonial structures in the near east especially iraq were tailor made to preserve minority interests Do you mean political structures? A lot of us would say the same goes for all capitalist states. the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing in severe crisis' is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so well formed within a class to break the old social bonds. What is a class without well formed economic interests? if you want to know how irrelevant are communist parties in the near east just read the proceedings of one their congresses to see how they paid more attention to the SALT one and two than to the every day problems and culture of the working class. How relevant did the Russian Bolsheviks seem in 1913? This irrelevance sits uneasily with the Ba'ath slaughtering and imprisoning communists wherever possible. and yes Kurds Assyrians Christians Jews did enjoy a higher standard of living in Iraq because of ghettoism. I think this is a putting the cart before the horse: i.e. ghettoes, in my opinion, are designed to reduce the standard of a living of a cultural group seen by ethnocentrists as parasites (or whatever) because all of them supposedly have a higher standard of living (not the reverse). ...something they do not want to lose pan Arabism the latter being the real enemy of imperialism because of its closeness to the grassroots Maybe. But which pan-Arabism? There have been many failed Arab nationalisms and my observation -- from talking to Arabs, from my formal studying of Arab history and from years of reading news stories --- is that nationalisms are now far less tangible at the grassroots than the various Islamist ideologies. For better or worse. regards, Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
if one were to read behind religious symbolism or the class differences then the dispute within the shia clergy over 'wilayat al fakih' is indeed an Arab-Iranian divide.. that is why sadr went it alone and that is why sadr's father also steered clear from iran. That is interesting. Any books and article that you can recommend on this topic? -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I usually do not respond to long discussions although I often want to because I am always pressed for time. it struck you said that you know something about the middle East I presume you probably read Arabic. Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soula said:"That is one Hakim down and probably another to go. that is no Shiiteopposition, You have got to also realize that there is a strongerPersia-Arab divide than what schism can pull together because the Iraniansin Iraq represented the aristocracy and if one were to read behind religioussymbolism or the class differences then the dispute within the shia clergyover 'wilayat al fakih' is indeed an Arab-Iranian divide.. that is why sadrwent it alone and that is why sadr's father also steered clear from iran."Don't worry, I'm somewhat familiar with Arab and Islamic politics. Historyshows that it doesn't take many insurgents to make an insurgency. So why arewe supposed to assume that Sadr represents anyone other than himself and his"vanguard"? Or that he is more significant than those explicitly opposed tothe "resistance"? Why is it that western liberals and leftists think theyknow better than the opposition parties in Iraq? That is rather a numerical question that leaps into a qualitative judgment. I do not think the occupation forces nor their cronies enjoy a lot of support in Iraq. in old societies my friend anonymity is out of the question.. collaboration with the Americans here will not go away for centuries.. the place is older than modern imperialism. let us not take sides, simply loving the Americans will not fly. and occupation is rather to gruesome not to push everyone to the brink quickly."the post colonial structures in the near east especially Iraq were tailormade to preserve minority interests"Do you mean political structures? A lot of us would say the same goes forall capitalist states. let us use social in the broad sense so as to encompass the political within that. but if so let us give the particular in nation or class formation some weight so as not to make an absolute out of a single historical project, european state building.I am sure the similarities are many but one straw will break the camel's back. would it not be too easy to put everything under the single roof of capitalism. just for adequacy in thought let us say that the way states were engineered in the southern ottoman provinces took note of these minorities."the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing in severe crisis'is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so wellformed within a class to break the old social bonds."What is a "class" without "well formed" economic interests? that is easy enough: there is so much economic instability in this developing market that taking refuge in precapitalist social organisational forms e.g. tribes etc is essential."if you want to know how irrelevant are communist parties in the near eastjust read the proceedings of one their congresses to see how they paid moreattention to the SALT one and two than to the every day problems and cultureof the working class.How relevant did the Russian Bolsheviks seem in 1913? This "irrelevance"sits uneasily with the Ba'ath slaughtering and imprisoning communistswherever possible. here we are back to who is to blame.. you forget that communist allied themselves with Kassem first and did a nasty job on pan arabist there was a lot of tit for tat. "and yes Kurds Assyrians Christians Jews did enjoy a higher standard ofliving in Iraq because of ghettoism."I think this is a putting the cart before the horse: i.e. ghettoes, in myopinion, are designed to reduce the standard of a living of a cultural groupseen by ethnocentrists as "parasites" (or whatever) because "all of them"supposedly have a higher standard of living (not the reverse). let us not get stuck on the language, all that meant is that these groups formed a cohesive whole on the basis of ethnicity."...something they do not want to lose pan Arabism the latter being the realenemy of imperialism because of its closeness to the grassroots"Maybe. But which pan-Arabism? There have been many failed Arab nationalismsand my observation -- from talking to Arabs, from my formal studying of Arabhistory and from years of reading news stories --- is that nationalisms arenow far less tangible at the grassroots than the various Islamistideologies. For better or worse. Indeed that ended with the Nasser period in 1979.. and since then there was the Saudi period and decline. real gdp percapita growth of about negative two percent, negative productivity growth, lower wages, lower investment rates -now five percent below global average of 22 percent.worse conditions for women, and worse of all, communist allying themselves US marines.. but let me say that the fundamentalist project cannot fly in the Arab world because there it represents aschism with history ( arabs at the peak of their empire were not fundementalist) that it cannot
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: It's interesting that _both_ of the Iraqi communist parties and the main Shia party still oppose the insurgency. In fact, the Shia party is now backing away from earlier calls for an immediate US withdrawal (see below). regards, Grant. Interview with Abdul Aziz al Hakim Of course Abdul Aziz al Hakim is opposed to an immediate US withdrawal. He is a member of the quisling Iraqi governing council. Harper's Magazine, July, 2003 by Charles Glass SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2002, LONDON A headline on a newspaper outside the Metropole Hotel, where factions of the Iraqi opposition are convening this week, declares: Troops Start Countdown to War. One can feel the expectation among the exiles, hundreds strong, in the hotel's lobbies and cafes. War is coming, and on its winds they will be carried back to Iraq, where they imagine they'll govern. But among the turbaned mullahs and dark-suited Arabs and Kurds are the men from Washington: State Department, Defense, White House, and CIA are all here, conspiring in corridors. On the fourteenth floor, George W. Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, Zalmay Khalilzad--fresh from his king-making exercise in Afghanistan--pulls the strings of the Iraqi marionettes below. This, a sign says, is The Iraqi Opposition Conference, London, 14-16 December 2002. For Democracy and Salvation of Iraq. It's a bit of the Middle East in England, so the conference begins late and with a recitation from the Koran. On a dais before the 320 delegates are the principal figures of the Iraqi opposition: Jalal Talabani, Massoud Barzani, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and Ahmad Chalabi. full: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m/is_1838_307/ai_105367408 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Louis said: Of course Abdul Aziz al Hakim is opposed to an immediate US withdrawal. He is a member of the quisling Iraqi governing council. Oh, I see, they're _quislings_. Well that settles that. No doubt you've conducted a thorough, professional survey of Iraqis to ascertain their views of the council?
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: Louis said: Of course Abdul Aziz al Hakim is opposed to an immediate US withdrawal. He is a member of the quisling Iraqi governing council. Oh, I see, they're _quislings_. Well that settles that. No doubt you've conducted a thorough, professional survey of Iraqis to ascertain their views of the council? I don't need to poll Iraqis. It is a fact that the 25 members of the IGC were handpicked by the USA. If this does not constitute a quisling government, then nothing does. Furthermore, on the question of ascertaining views. It doesn't matter to me if Iraqis acquiesced in a government that was imposed by force. So did the people of Grenada. The left should not be in the business of doing free PR for imperialism. They have FOX TV, Thomas Friedman et al for that. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, or why we should take such a party seriously. Maybe I am missing something in my ignorance. On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:14:16AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Grant Lee wrote: Louis said: Of course Abdul Aziz al Hakim is opposed to an immediate US withdrawal. He is a member of the quisling Iraqi governing council. Oh, I see, they're _quislings_. Well that settles that. No doubt you've conducted a thorough, professional survey of Iraqis to ascertain their views of the council? I don't need to poll Iraqis. It is a fact that the 25 members of the IGC were handpicked by the USA. If this does not constitute a quisling government, then nothing does. Furthermore, on the question of ascertaining views. It doesn't matter to me if Iraqis acquiesced in a government that was imposed by force. So did the people of Grenada. The left should not be in the business of doing free PR for imperialism. They have FOX TV, Thomas Friedman et al for that. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael said: I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, or why we should take such a party seriously. I don't think that's the real issue. No-one knows whether the insurgents are more popular than the US-backed council; it will take an election to establish that. And what is imperialism, if not the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground? Why should we take _our_ views --- few of us being experts on Iraqi history or politics --- more seriously than the views of Iraqis who live in Iraq at the moment, and have also lived there throughout Saddam's regime? regards, Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: And what is imperialism, if not the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground? Why should we take _our_ views --- few of us being experts on Iraqi history or politics --- more seriously than the views of Iraqis who live in Iraq at the moment, and have also lived there throughout Saddam's regime? If imperialism is about anything, it is about conquering weaker nations through military force and economic coercion; then imposing occupation regimes. It is astonishing that you can't see your way clear to this, but then again a lot of decent people from William Shawcross to some not so decent like Christopher Hitchens haven't either. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael Perelman wrote: I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, or why we should take such a party seriously. Maybe I am missing something in my ignorance. No, you are not missing anything. The kind of communist party that would join with the u.s. is a party of careerists and (as Lou says) Quislings whose only relationship to the communist tradition is to spit on it. One of the things many of us in the movement against the first Gulf War argued even at that time was that the U.S. aggression against Iraq meant that there were only two futures for Iraq: A government opposed to u.s. interests or a government supported by permnanent u.s. occupation. We were only partly right. We underestimated the heroism and determination of the Iraqi people. There is only one possible future for Iraq. Carrol
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I don't disagree with you, but I cannot see why we should take this group more seriously than Chalabi or other collaborators. On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:10:00PM +0800, Grant Lee wrote: Michael said: I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, or why we should take such a party seriously. I don't think that's the real issue. No-one knows whether the insurgents are more popular than the US-backed council; it will take an election to establish that. And what is imperialism, if not the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground? Why should we take _our_ views --- few of us being experts on Iraqi history or politics --- more seriously than the views of Iraqis who live in Iraq at the moment, and have also lived there throughout Saddam's regime? regards, Grant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what is imperialism, if not the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground? surely there is a qualitative difference between _real_ imperialist policy (i.e., the presumption that one knows better than the people on the ground and thus imposes one's view with bayonets, bombs, and blockades) and verbal snobbery (the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground, which is stated in words). Equating these two types of imperialism is nothing but obfuscation, either an effort to cover up the real imperialist policy or to use fallacious reasoning to win an argument or both. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Last post for me today. My usage of imperialism a few posts back --- the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground --- was not supposed to be definitive or exclusive of all other usages. Nor did I say it was. Just for the record, I was opposed to the invasion, and I took part in demonstrations against it. I didn't expect it to make any difference at the time and that horse has long since bolted. And perhaps --- just perhaps -- Iraqis have reasons to feel that the effects of a sudden US withdrawal would be as bad, or worse, than the occupation itself regards, Grant
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Devine, James wrote: and verbal snobbery (the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground, which is stated in words). Equating these two types of imperialism is nothing but obfuscation, either an effort to cover up the real imperialist policy or to use fallacious reasoning to win an argument or both. In any case, just as the people of Iraq have to act (will act and are acting)for themselves, so we in the imperialist homeland must act for ourselves in response to the actions of our government. And that action has to be organized around the slogan of U.S. Out Now, No Conditions. I don't see how this constitutes even verbal snobbery: we aren't telling the Iraqis what they must do; we are doing what we must do. Carrol
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Carrol Cox said: No, you are not missing anything. The kind of communist party that would join with the u.s. is a party of careerists and (as Lou says) Quislings whose only relationship to the communist tradition is to spit on it. This observation about careerist is a bit ironic, given the demgoraphic of the people who post to this list, don't you think? Now I've promised myself to avoid being simply insulting in my posts from now on. I think we have to take the ICP seriously for a number of important reasons. First, the alternative to a peaceful transition (regardless of its framework) to a secular (or at least mostly) democratic state is what? I know there are a lot of fans of more violence and uprisings on this list and what not (still a problematic postion in my view for people living in the west ), but this war is not really like Vietnam nor is it really like Palestine, or whatever comparison is in fashion these days. Who is supporting the uprising? What is its ideological orientation? Part of it is religious fundamentalists; part of it is former Ba'ath Party miltiary elements. The choices for social organization seem to be a return to Saddam-style rule (fascist, notwithstanding some on the left even on this list who think he was ok) or a system closer to that of Iran -- both imposed on an economic infrastructure completely demolished by three wars and 10 years of sanctions in just over 2 decades. Now who can take seriously a detached left located in the west that objectively supports one of these options (and it really doesn't matter which because that western left is only interested seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats not peace and reconstruction). Best, Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel Wendland wrote: west ), but this war is not really like Vietnam nor is it really like Palestine, or whatever comparison is in fashion these days. Really? Almost the entire Arab and Moslem world sees the US as having the same relationship to the Iraqis as the Zionist entity has toward the Palestinians. Who is supporting the uprising? What is its ideological orientation? Part of it is religious fundamentalists; part of it is former Ba'ath Party miltiary elements. Real politics involves real choices. Your comrades in Iraq have aligned themselves with the most reactionary imperialist power in history. They sit side-by-side with Chalabi, the crook and CIA asset, the rotten Kurdish leadership which sold out the PKK to the Turkish military, and Shi'ite clerics who are every bit as backward as those you disparage. At least Sadr has stood up to imperialism rather than crawl at its feet for some crumbs. Now who can take seriously a detached left located in the west that objectively supports one of these options (and it really doesn't matter which because that western left is only interested seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats not peace and reconstruction). I was always under the impression that peace comes only when the US is dealt a military defeat. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel Wendland wrote: Carrol Cox said: No, you are not missing anything. The kind of communist party that would join with the u.s. is a party of careerists and (as Lou says) Quislings whose only relationship to the communist tradition is to spit on it. This observation about careerist is a bit ironic, given the demgoraphic of the people who post to this list, don't you think? Sorry, I used the term in a limited sense -- meaning those who attempt to make a career through (and usually within) leftist organizations, not those trying individually to build ordinary careers. Everyone has to get a salary to live. Those who back in the '70s were called Poverty Pimps are a recent u.s. example. Carrol Here is the OED entry on careerist: A person (esp. a holder of a public or responsible position) who is mainly intent on the furtherance of his career, often in an unscrupulous manner. Also attrib. or as adj. [1910 H. G. WELLS Mr. Polly vii. 225 He called him the chequered Careerist.] 1917 Times 5 June 7/2 Half the present unpopularity of the lawyer-politician..is due to the fact that he is too often a carpet-bagger and a careerist. 1926 S. JAMESON Three Kingdoms v. 153 I'm one of those damned careerist women. 1929 G. B. SHAW in Times 6 Aug., There were already..members of it [sc. the Labour party] who were careeristsmen who wanted to have a political career and joined the party they thought would give them the best prospects. 1934 Punch 21 Mar. 336/2 He states plainly that he was a careerist, power and money were in his hands and it is no wonder that he was dazzled by them. 1940 G. BARKER Lament Triumph 15 The careerist politician and the vague thinker. 1969 Daily Tel. 4 Jan. 23/2 Accused..of being a double-dealer and political careerist. Walter Reuther, for example, in the mid 1930s held membership cards simultaneously in the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and the Democratic Party. (Attested to by a Wayne State University professor who had come across them in a bundle of miscellaneous papers turned over to the Wayne State Library.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I'm not going to comment on the content of this missive as much as its style. Joel W writes: This observation about [allegedly] careerist [nature of the Communist Party of Iraq] is a bit ironic, given the demgoraphic of the people who post to this list, don't you think? this kind of argument is useless. Just because someone is careerist doesn't mean that they're always wrong. Further, this list may involve a lot of people who belong to the demographic of having life-long careers, but that doesn't mean that they are careerist (see C. Cox's definition). A careerist might not even have what's typically seen as a career: it could be a labor union official, a member of a minor political party, or whatever, but what makes a person a careerist is the willingness to sacrifice principles and/or ethics in order to rise in the hierarchy or to protect his or her status there. ... I know there are a lot of fans of more violence and uprisings on this list and what not (still a problematic postion in my view for people living in the west ), but this war is not really like Vietnam nor is it really like Palestine, or whatever comparison is in fashion these days. I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. Sometimes fashions are right, as with the late-1960s fashion of opposing the US war against Vietnam. BTW, a relative of mine uses the same trick, dismissing those who favor abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. as fashionable. It's standard among academics (and I should know, since I swim amongst them). .. Now who can take seriously a detached left located in the west that objectively supports one of these options (and it really doesn't matter which because that western left is only interested seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats not peace and reconstruction). Here's a rhetorical trick from the Marxian tradition: the people I'm arguing with are objectively supporting some group. This is okay if it mean let's look at the implications of your position, but too often it's just a trick to avoid thinking... or to slander someone. There's also the trick of not naming the people I'm arguing with (those who are only interested [in] seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats), an amorphous and undefined that western left. Thus their position doesn't have to be defined, quoted, or even argued against. JD
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Now who can take seriously a detached left located in the west that objectively supports one of these options (and it really doesn't matter which because that western left is only interested seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats not peace and reconstruction). Best, Joel Wendland My Friend, I don't know much about the detached left located in the west but as one eastern leftist located in the west, I support the Iraqi uprising to the fullest extend. And I am dearly interested in seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats. It is neither up to the U.S. nor to the rest of the west to bring peace to our region and I don't give a shit to that so-called reconstruction, either. Enough is enough! It is only up to us to decide where we want to go in the future. And hear this from someone who dispises religous fundamentalisms of any kind. Sabri Oncu
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I thought imperialism was in part one nation exerting its control over another usually against that nation's and not in self defence. Certainly the US attacked Iraq against its will without asking people on the ground. The PNAC website makes it clear that the aim is to project US might into the Middle East and no doubt help protect Israel and also secure vital energy resources. That is the imperialism that is at issue. THe issue is the status of those who side with imperialist occupiers when there are obvious resistant forces at work. Groups that side with the occupiers are prima facie quislings. Even if it is merely a tactical move it is exceedingly dangerous and liable to result in loss of any credibility. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib Michael said: I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, or why we should take such a party seriously. I don't think that's the real issue. No-one knows whether the insurgents are more popular than the US-backed council; it will take an election to establish that. And what is imperialism, if not the presumption that one knows better than people on the ground? Why should we take _our_ views --- few of us being experts on Iraqi history or politics --- more seriously than the views of Iraqis who live in Iraq at the moment, and have also lived there throughout Saddam's regime? regards, Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
There is now an effort from many communist parties to denounce the Iraqi communist party for collaborating with the US in the invasion. It seems that theircollaboration purposely or not with the US and the CIA goes back to their vehement fight against the pan Arab project because the minorities represented inside the communist party feared losing class privileges inside their post colonial countires if and when diluted in the Arab whole. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
good./joanna soula avramidis wrote: There is now an effort from many communist parties to denounce the Iraqi communist party for collaborating with the US in the invasion. It seems that their collaboration purposely or not with the US and the CIA goes back to their vehement fight against the pan Arab project because the minorities represented inside the communist party feared losing class privileges inside their post colonial countires if and when diluted in the Arab whole. Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/hotjobs_mail_signature_footer_textlink/evt=23983/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Re: Iraq: the legal contradictions of market construction
At 01:16 PM 1/10/2004, you wrote: [any guesses as to why this would be in the Arts section of the NYT?] [New York Times] January 10, 2004 Free-Market Iraq? Not So Fast By DAPHNE EVIATAR There is no doubt about American intentions for the Iraqi economy. As Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, Market systems will be favored, not Stalinist command systems. The Saturday NY Times section is sort of a ghetto they set up for left-of-center commentary. Don't ask me why. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq: the legal contradictions of market construction
Didn't the Washington Post obmudsman recently apologize for burying an important story in the style section? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq banking
Nomi Prins is up on this subject. On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:09:10PM -0600, k hanly wrote: Here is a post from another list asking an economist about some rather interesting developments in Iraq.. Cheers, Ken Hanly One more question: As an economist, what do you envision would be possible consequences of both: (1) the newly-created Trade Bank of Iraq (Order 20) and its control by a US bank (JP Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years); and (2) the new bank law of Iraq? (Order 40: Under the recently promulgated Iraq Banking Law, private banks may elect to sell a portion of their equity to domestic or foreign investors. The new banking law permits six foreign banks over the next five years the right to enter the Iraqi market. Two or more banks may be fast tracked, based on their agreement to accelerate the availability of local credit. An unlimited number of banks may purchase up to 50% of an Iraqi bank. Foreign banks may enter Iraq as branches, subsidiaries, representative offices, or through partnerships with Iraqi banks.) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq banking
The Trade Bank of Iraq, as led by JP Morgan Chase (who has never played this type of role on the international stage before) is a mechanism designed to achieve complete control over Iraq's money flow from an: a) lending b) external (oil) revenues extraction, and c) internal investment perspective. It is comprised by a consortium of banks mostly emanating from countries whose governments supported the war. It did not even pretend to include a single local bank. The operation of this Trade Bank would be akin to having all finances surrounding US trade controlled by, say, Deutschebank - except more extreme - Deutschebank owns US domiciled subsidiaries which pay taxes here. The new bank law of Iraq ensures that: a) JPM Chase will become Iraq's number one lender (Argentina, of course, didn't work out so well for them). It will be one of the two banks 'fast-tracked' by virtue of that lending. b) Most of the Iraqi local banks will be unable to make decisions about their own future or business strategy because up to 50% (read: no LESS than 50%) will be owned by some combination of international banks. Many will merge, first or during, these external bank takeovers. c) Any Iraqi local bank that is not taken over 50% by international banks, will have to compete with an 'unlimited number' of foreign bank subsidiaries with far greater lending capabilities. Banks in this situation will fold. As a related point, Iraqi oil revenues will be doing triple collateral duty: a) The external bank loans outpouring to Iraq will be collateralized by oil revenues. b) Already, the Ex-Im bank has announced its letters of credit will be collateralized by oil revenues. c) Much of the US financing of Iraq's 'liberation and reconstruction' is supposed to be offset by oil revenues. Expectations for those oil revenues went on a free-fall throughout 2003 (from $20 billion in March to $2.5 billion by year end. According to the administration, left over revenues, will belong to the 'people of Iraq.' Nomi -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Iraq banking Nomi Prins is up on this subject. On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:09:10PM -0600, k hanly wrote: Here is a post from another list asking an economist about some rather interesting developments in Iraq.. Cheers, Ken Hanly One more question: As an economist, what do you envision would be possible consequences of both: (1) the newly-created Trade Bank of Iraq (Order 20) and its control by a US bank (JP Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years); and (2) the new bank law of Iraq? (Order 40: Under the recently promulgated Iraq Banking Law, private banks may elect to sell a portion of their equity to domestic or foreign investors. The new banking law permits six foreign banks over the next five years the right to enter the Iraqi market. Two or more banks may be fast tracked, based on their agreement to accelerate the availability of local credit. An unlimited number of banks may purchase up to 50% of an Iraqi bank. Foreign banks may enter Iraq as branches, subsidiaries, representative offices, or through partnerships with Iraqi banks.) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
At 11:52 AM 1/2/2004, you wrote: This is an interesting site for information on reconstruction finances etc. It would seem crony capitalism at least is thriving in Iraq if nothing else. http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/ Cheers, Ken Hanly In an effort to ensure that Iraqi oil revenues are managed in a transparent manner, Open Society Institute Chairman George Soros has launched a new initiative called Iraq Revenue Watch. Iraq Revenue Watch will monitor Iraq's oil industry to ensure that it is managed with the highest standards of transparency and that the benefits of national oil wealth flow to the people of Iraq. Iraq Revenue Watch complements existing http://www.soros.org/Open Society Institute initiatives that monitor revenues produced by the extractive industries. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
Soros? Transparency? Is this more hilarious than sad, or vice versa?--- currency speculation I guess doesn't register as an extractive industry when there is hardly anything more extractive and less transparent. Soros making sure that the Iraqi oil wealth is used for the benfit of the Iraqi people? And John Major is going to make sure that the Cattlemen's Association lives up to the most rigorous, transparent standards for BSE testing.. dms
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
Thanks for the Info. I guess it is still better than Fox Moos Watch! Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Iraq Revenue Watch At 11:52 AM 1/2/2004, you wrote: This is an interesting site for information on reconstruction finances etc. In an effort to ensure that Iraqi oil revenues are managed in a transparent manner, Open Society Institute Chairman George Soros has launched a new initiative called Iraq Revenue Watch. Iraq Revenue Watch will monitor Iraq's oil industry to ensure that it is managed with the highest standards of transparency and that the benefits of national oil wealth flow to the people of Iraq. Iraq Revenue Watch complements existing http://www.soros.org/Open Society Institute initiatives that monitor revenues produced by the extractive industries. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
So if Soros funds it, does that mean it's all untrue? Should I stop reading the New York Times because advertisers fund it? Doug k hanly wrote: Thanks for the Info. I guess it is still better than Fox Moos Watch! Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Iraq Revenue Watch At 11:52 AM 1/2/2004, you wrote: This is an interesting site for information on reconstruction finances etc. In an effort to ensure that Iraqi oil revenues are managed in a transparent manner, Open Society Institute Chairman George Soros has launched a new initiative called Iraq Revenue Watch. Iraq Revenue Watch will monitor Iraq's oil industry to ensure that it is managed with the highest standards of transparency and that the benefits of national oil wealth flow to the people of Iraq. Iraq Revenue Watch complements existing http://www.soros.org/Open Society Institute initiatives that monitor revenues produced by the extractive industries. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
Rhetorical question? Come on, nobody suggested any such thing. Read it critically, like you would or should read the NY Times, without illusion or denying its specific allegiance to a specific class interest. We read the WSJ, Financial Times, the WTO, IMF, WB, BIS, BEA, Statistics Canada, ETC ETAL IBID and OPCIT don't we? And Adam Smith, the Physiocrats, Hobbes, Locke.. Hell, I've even read Proyect and Henwood. Have to admit though, never read Ayn Rand or George Gilder I find this sort of thing, the speculator as reformer, to be the verification of the fact that thugs everywhere want to be regarded as gentlemen, or as was said 35 or so years ago by the then fop singer now fop MBE Jagger-- every cop is a criminal... dms
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
So if Soros funds it, does that mean it's all untrue? Should I stop reading the New York Times because advertisers fund it? Doug This project seems to be an outgrowth of another Soros venture, the http://www.eurasianet.org/policy_forum/crw.shtmlCaspian Revenue Watch, which monitors the development of oil production in the Caspian basin. The goal is to promote transparency, accountability, and public oversight in the management of oil and natural gas revenues. The advisory board on this outfit is echt-Soros, a mixture of human rights figureheads and military-industrial nabobs. You can find Mikhail Chachkhunashvili, a member of Open Society in Georgia, where he and other hirelings organized a coup after Shevernadze appeared to be tilting toward Putin. You also have Karin Lissakers, whose on the board of the IMF, an outfit famous for its transparency. If Soros was in the business of dispensing information like the NY Times, which you can sift the bad (Judith Miller) from the good (Chris Hedges), it would be one thing. But basically he and the Open Society are a kind of privatized CIA that meddles openly in the affairs of other governments. In my opinion, one of the biggest tasks facing the left is dissociating itself from this social democrat. Next to coming to terms with the LBJ of our time: Howard Dean. (Michael Perelman, please forgive me for answering Doug Henwood but he was obviously responding to something I wrote. If you want to punish me for getting out of line, no problem.) Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
Wait a minute, are the rules of engagement here that there is to be no engagement?
Re: Iraq Revenue Watch
[speaking of crony capitalism and Eurasianet..] The new cold war The long struggle between the US and Russia has found a new focus Jonathan Steele Saturday January 3, 2004 The Guardian In the dying weeks of another war-filled year, one bit of good news was the non-violent uprising which toppled Eduard Shevardnadze's regime in Georgia. But as the Caucasian republic goes to the polls tomorrow to choose a successor, the risk of bloodshed remains high and powerful external forces are trying to determine how the new president behaves. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Georgia is the cockpit of a new cold war. During the Soviet period the struggle between the US and Russia was on a global scale. Massive arsenals were locked in stalemate in Europe, but wars ravaged Africa and Asia as the superpowers found it easier to compete there by interfering in local conflicts without the fear of nuclear conflagration. These were the so-called proxy wars. The USSR's collapse did not end the rivalry. It merely recast it on a more complex stage which stressed deviousness rather than outright hostility. Washington wooed post-communist Russia with offers of partnership while expanding the old anti-Russian alliance, Nato, to take in former Soviet allies as well as the three Baltic states. Even as that task was being completed, the Clinton administration was turning its attention to Russia's southern flanks in central Asia and the Caucasus. With Russia's formal system of control dismantled, the aim was to reduce as much of Moscow's political and economic influence as possible. Georgia was a good candidate to start the process because Shevardnadze, as Soviet foreign minister, had shown great readiness to comply with western demands. Aid money poured in, making Georgia the biggest per-capita recipient of American government funding after Israel. Help also went to develop a range of civil society organisations, from private media to polling organisations and new political parties. While few would quarrel with the need for good governance initiatives in authoritarian or failed states, it would be better if they were run by less partisan bodies, like international non-governmental organisations or the United Nations agencies, than by states with an imperial agenda. However, by 2003, after 10 years of Shevardnadze's rule, reform in Georgia was unimpressive. The country had become an archetype of the worst kind of post-communist state, where a corrupt rentier class of narrowly selected officials and mafia businessmen enriched itself through smuggling, crony privatisation, theft from the few remaining state enterprises, and control of customs duties and port revenues. They tolerated opposition newspapers and multiparty polls on the assumption that state control of television would allow them to manipulate the electoral contest, while loyal officials would announce fraudulent results if voters went wrong. The last line of defence was always the army and police who, it was thought, would put down protests by force in order to save the regime because they were part of it. Serbia broke the mould in September 2000. Popular frustration over corruption and a failing economy, plus anger over too many lost wars, produced Europe's first post-communist revolution. When the regime tried to cheat on the election results, people took to the streets in huge numbers and the army split. This was different from the revolutions of 1989, which were more political than economic. They also took place under a single-party system in which large sections of the leadership had themselves lost faith and wanted a soft landing. Milosevic's downfall led to predictions that Georgia would be the next post-communist state to have an uprising. There was similar anger over crony capitalism. Shevardnadze had not sparked any wars, but nationalists were upset that he had failed to regain two lost provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Mikhail Saakashvili, who led the November street protests and is expected to win tomorrow's election, is a nationalist who regularly plays that card in his speeches. Bush's people supported Clinton's strategy of diminishing Russia. In power, they sharpened it. They exploited the terrorism scare of 9/11, plus Putin's desire for US acquiescence to his failed war in Chechnya, as a way to get Moscow's consent to the establishment of US bases in central Asia. Geared as a temporary measure against the Taliban, they are determined to keep them for possible use against Russia, China and the Middle East. They accelerated the pipeline wars in the Caucasus by pressing western companies to cut Russia out of the search for oil in the Caspian and make sure that none was transported through Russia. Why then did Washington decide to abandon Shevardnadze? It was not an uncontested move. Before the November fraud, most US officials hoped to see him remain in office until his term expired next year, provided he let the opposition form a
Re: Iraq Today: Pirate, pillagers, and smugglers plague Basra port
Sounds like chaos to me. The breakdown of the State due, not to class conscious activity, but to a free-market turned into a free-for-all--class divided social relations without benefit of the rule of bourgeois law and its police. Too bad the breakdown of the Iraqui State isn't an example of anarchy at work. Socialist greetings, Mike B) --- Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [An idyllic scene from the quiet, British, Southern part of the country] URL: http://www.iraq-today.com/news/business/9.html Economy Date posted: 09.09.2003. Law order Pirates, pillagers, and smugglers plague Basra port By Ahmad Mukhtar ABUL KHASIB - Port manager Hamid al-Jabriy says he can stand at the waterline and see pirate speedboats, armed with RPG rocket launchers and PK machineguns, some 500 meters off the wharves in the narrows of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, waiting for their prey. The guards at his gate, meanwhile, shrug and say they can't possibly do their job - they don't have the guns to fight looters, and even if they did manage to kill one it would only land them in a tribal blood feud. One of them recalls how he once got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. When he came back, his cot was missing. By land and by sea, the port of Abu Filoos in the town of Abul Khasib has a bit of a security problem. Iraq's second port after Umm Qasr, Abu Filoos - roughly translatable as Mr Moneybags - used to fuel the thriving commercial markets of Basra. Now, it's become the sugar daddy for pillagers who pray on whatever commerce dares to enter. The guards, says al-Jabiry says, fears looters -if you shoot them, you'll get pulled into a tribal dispute which will end either in revenge killing or the payment of blood money compensation. Some in the area have decided that if you can beat them, join them. Painted on the vow of a vessel docked at the nearby al-Ashar wharf is the following warning: This ship is under the protection of the al-Qaramsha - a tribe once known for trade in dairy products and scrap, now for racketeering. Al-Jabiry, for his part, says that he appealed to the Americans, the British, and the local governor for help. In desperation, he appealed to local tribal leaders and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who provided him with weapons and fast boats to chase the pirates. However, his quarry can always take refuge on the Iranian side of the waterway. Another problem is administrative disorder. After the port was looted during the war, officials turned to private subcontractors to provide equipment and longshoremen. The private businessmen, however, generally deal directly with the owners of vessels, rarely coordinating activities with the port administration. The result is chaos on the wharves. Coming into Iraq via Abu Filoos are cars, plastic goods, and canned foodstuffs. As for export, many commodities that are either required for industrial development or are likely to have been stolen are banned from leaving the country, so little more than cottonseed, wool, and jute go out. Legally, that is. Abu Filoos officials know very well that they are a haven for smugglers. Iraqi fishermen, they say, used to be considered vital to the country's food stability, so the old regime gave them a quota of diesel to motor down the Shatt al-Arab to fish in the Arabian Gulf. An intelligence outpost at the mouth of the sea would verify their catch to make sure they were doing what they were supposed to do. These days, however, the security outpost is gone, but the fishermen still receive their diesel. Instead of bothering about the Arabian Gulf chasing fish, port officials say, many fishermen simply sell their quota to passing boats. Officials recall one fishing boat that demanded a refill of diesel after its initial quota had run out. It blocked entrance to a wharf to a cargo vessel, claiming that it didn't even have the fuel to motor out. Rather than give into blackmail, the officials proudly recall, they simply got a lift and hoisted the offending vessel away. Despite the port's troubles, Al-Jabiry thinks most of his problems could be solved by centralized policing. A strike force armed with fast boats to chase smugglers and pirates, he says, would perfect the solution. = * Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity. Albert Einstein http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
Re: Iraq Today: Pirate, pillagers, and smugglers plague Basra port
it's a case of the Failed Leviathan. When the Lawman on the white horse (Hobbes' Leviathan) rides into town, he's supposed to not just toss the bandits out (as in the classic flick, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN) -- he's supposed to create law and order so that the folks who sacrifice their independence to him can live normal lives. (or so the scenario goes...) But this Lawman wasn't really interested in that task, being more interested in exploiting the town for his own use and not thinking through what was necessary to maintain or create order. He ends up being more like the late Mobutu Sese Seko, exploiting the country while destroying order. Jim -Original Message- From: Mike Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 9/10/2003 3:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Iraq Today: Pirate, pillagers, and smugglers plague Basra port Sounds like chaos to me. The breakdown of the State due, not to class conscious activity, but to a free-market turned into a free-for-all--class divided social relations without benefit of the rule of bourgeois law and its police. Too bad the breakdown of the Iraqui State isn't an example of anarchy at work. Socialist greetings, Mike B) --- Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [An idyllic scene from the quiet, British, Southern part of the country] URL: http://www.iraq-today.com/news/business/9.html Economy Date posted: 09.09.2003. Law order Pirates, pillagers, and smugglers plague Basra port By Ahmad Mukhtar ABUL KHASIB - Port manager Hamid al-Jabriy says he can stand at the waterline and see pirate speedboats, armed with RPG rocket launchers and PK machineguns, some 500 meters off the wharves in the narrows of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, waiting for their prey. The guards at his gate, meanwhile, shrug and say they can't possibly do their job - they don't have the guns to fight looters, and even if they did manage to kill one it would only land them in a tribal blood feud. One of them recalls how he once got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. When he came back, his cot was missing. By land and by sea, the port of Abu Filoos in the town of Abul Khasib has a bit of a security problem. Iraq's second port after Umm Qasr, Abu Filoos - roughly translatable as Mr Moneybags - used to fuel the thriving commercial markets of Basra. Now, it's become the sugar daddy for pillagers who pray on whatever commerce dares to enter. The guards, says al-Jabiry says, fears looters -if you shoot them, you'll get pulled into a tribal dispute which will end either in revenge killing or the payment of blood money compensation. Some in the area have decided that if you can beat them, join them. Painted on the vow of a vessel docked at the nearby al-Ashar wharf is the following warning: This ship is under the protection of the al-Qaramsha - a tribe once known for trade in dairy products and scrap, now for racketeering. Al-Jabiry, for his part, says that he appealed to the Americans, the British, and the local governor for help. In desperation, he appealed to local tribal leaders and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who provided him with weapons and fast boats to chase the pirates. However, his quarry can always take refuge on the Iranian side of the waterway. Another problem is administrative disorder. After the port was looted during the war, officials turned to private subcontractors to provide equipment and longshoremen. The private businessmen, however, generally deal directly with the owners of vessels, rarely coordinating activities with the port administration. The result is chaos on the wharves. Coming into Iraq via Abu Filoos are cars, plastic goods, and canned foodstuffs. As for export, many commodities that are either required for industrial development or are likely to have
Re: Iraq: JP Morgan takes over U.N. role (no joke)
It is no surprise that JPM Chase bagged the lead role running Iraq's financial system. When in doubt about how to extend credit on egregious terms (which will happen), controlling the entire banking mechanism helps. JPM Chase and their consortium are front running the IMF and Worldbank in the drive to pile debt on Iraq. JPM Chase is directly connected to Iraq's other corporate controller, Bechtel. George Shultz, Reagan's former secretary of state and Bechtel board member, is the honorary chairman of JPM Chase's international advisory council. The council includes Henry Kissinger (also a member of Rumsfeld's defense policy board) and former Saudi Arabia finance minister H.E. Sheikh Mohammed Ali Abalkhail. Bechtel CEO, Riley Bechtel, is both a JPM Chase board member and sits on Bush's international advisory council. Further details about JPM's role and predictions for the financial deconstruction of Iraq are discussed in my piece 'Making a Killing in Iraq', in the latest LBO #105. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/LBO_current.html Nomi -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Iraq: JP Morgan takes over U.N. role (no joke) The occupation government in Iraq has announced that the U.N. 'Oil For Food Programme' now been replaced by a bank consortium run by J.P. Morgan. The J.P. Morgan consortium (it will run the Iraq Trade Bank controlling all foreign transactions governmental and private). The initial capital will be $100 million of which $95 m. is Iraqi funds from previous oil sales transferred by the U.N and $5 is from the Provisional Authority (no indication whether the source was Iraqi or U.S. funds). No funds will be advanced by the private banks. It is not clear what role the associated banks will play. No doubt selected on merit and the interests of the Iraqi people, the associated banks include financial powerhouse countries like Poland, Portugal, Spain, Australia, Italy, Turkey and Kuwait. Germany is not included; France has one Bank. Saturday August 30, 6:53 AM UPDATE/Iraq Trade Bank: List Of Consortium Banks By Rebecca Christie Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A consortium of more than a dozen international banks led by J.P. Morgan Chase Co. (JPM) will lead the newly created Trade Bank of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq announced Friday. The U.S.-led coalition authority in Baghdad created the Trade Bank to allow Iraqi ministries to begin making big-ticket purchases abroad. The program is on track to start up in September. It's expected to handle annual purchases of hundreds of millions of dollars. The J.P. Morgan-led group will be paid about $2 million to run the Trade Bank, once a contract is drawn up. The winning consortium also will benefit from billions of dollars in anticipated business that will eventually flow through the facility, said Peter McPherson, director of economic development for the Coalition Provisional Government in Iraq. The real action here isn't the contract to run the trade bank, to oversee the trade bank, McPherson told reporters in a conference call from Baghdad. It is the trade credit that will go through the trade bank. The winning consortium was picked last week by an Iraqi-led selection committee that gathered in Bahrain. The group includes 13 banks representing 14 countries: the U.S., Canada, France, the U.K., Japan, Turkey, Kuwait, South Africa, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Australia and New Zealand. Nearly 60 banks initially applied to take part in the Trade Bank, and six consortia made it to the final screening, U.S. Treasury officials said. There was enormous response to this and it became of intense interest to a large, large number of banks, reflecting a view...that Iraq is important to these banks, McPherson said. These banks were making a commercial judgment about the future of Iraq. The Trade Bank will initially work with the government, but is expected to expand to handle private-sector projects as well. McPherson said private-sector purchases would require a different administrative set-up. The Iraqi government will pay for the Trade Bank operations and also provide most of its staff, McPherson said. In the long run, it is hoped that Iraqis would be able to take on more the facility's operations, he said. We are very much looking to Iraqis taking steadily more leadership in this, McPherson said. There are many people in this country we believe can do it, particularly with some exposure and training. A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman reached Friday afternoon said no one at the bank was available for comment. Iraq Trade Bank Replaces U.N. Oil-For-Food Program The Trade Bank will make it possible for Iraq to import major equipment needed for reconstruction by reassuring exporters that they will get paid, Treasury officials said. More than 50 years ago, the U.S. set
Re: Iraq: JP Morgan takes over U.N. role (no joke)
Sorry about that! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: Iraq; dollarization?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36593] Iraq; dollarization? dollarization of Iraq is quite likely, not because of dollar vs. euro competition as much as because (1) the U.S. will be in charge; and (2) the current dominant policy ideology still says that dollarization is a good idea. The benefit to the dollar in terms of competition with the euro seems to be a bonus on top of these. On the other hand, increased resistance to the occupation may push the US to try to make the Iraqi quislings look legitimate. This militates against dollarization. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:40 AM To: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:36593] Iraq; dollarization? Any thoughts from the list, given the spate of conjectures on the dollar/euro binary?
FW: useful web resources re Iraq
Title: FW: useful web resources re Iraq my friend Jennifer Olmstead sent me the following. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! Hi all, As someone who has been studying the Middle East for quite some time, I feel compelled during this time of war, to send out this E-mail with what I hope you will find to be some worthwhile links, providing more historical context, as well as hinting about what the likely aftermath of this war is likely to be. Two articles that provide excellent discussions of the recent history of Iraq and US/Iraqi relations are: Why Another War? available at http://www.merip.org/ I am providing the above, general link, since this cite has many other interesting ME articles. From there you can click on the Why another War? title. and Understanding the US-Iraq Crisis http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer.pdf If you are interested in seeing the original document that sparked some recent discussions of the close links between Bush's current advisors and Israel, the following may be of interest. http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm In particular, see section titled Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy This is the original document upon which much of the current speculation is based. It's a paper written for Netanyahu in the mid 1990s, by Perle, Feith and Wurmser, all currently close advisors to Bush, that outlines the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein (with the suggestion of replacing him with members of the Hashemite family, who know rule Jordan). Also of interest might be webpages hinting at increased anger globally and a potential economic backlash, due to this war. See, for instance various webpages now advocating a boycott of US products, either domestically or internationally: http://www.bethecause.org (US based) http://www.adbusters.org/ (Canadian) http://www.consumers-against-war.de/ (Germany) Jennifer
The Kurds Turks the pressures re Iraq
http://harikumar.brinkster.net/AllianceIssues/CLOUD.htm
Re: Iraq: Oil wells are burning
You sure these aren't US special forces on orders from Halliburton?;) Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ALIST [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35773] Iraq: Oil wells are burning Just read on Haberturk, a Turkish News Site, that oil wells in Iraq are on fire. The news piece said, details will follow soon. In the mean time here is an article from Houston Cronicle. Sabri + March 19, 2003, 10:59AM Saddam opens spigots on oil wells, reports say By DAVID IVANOVICH Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- With a U.S.-led assault perhaps just hours away, Saddam Hussein has opened the spigots on some of his country's oil wells, creating pools of crude that could be set ablaze, Pentagon and oil industry sources said today. Saddam's operatives also are believed to have tied plastic explosives packed against the wells to a small number of switches, those sources said. This would allow Saddam to detonate many wells simultaneously, and it could also help ensure that any order to blow up the wells is carried out. Some observers have questioned whether Iraqis would follow orders to torch the fields in their own country, as they did to the oil fields in Kuwait. A Pentagon source said the activity had been observed in at least the northern part of the country, where Iraq's huge Kirkuk oil-field is located. The Pentagon fears Saddam intends to destroy as many of the country's 1,500 oil wells as possible if the United States and Britain launch an invasion. U.S. and British military officials have been accusing Saddam's forces of planting explosives in Kirkuk, as well as in southern fields near Basra. Oil industry officials also have been hearing reports that Saddam has been replacing key oil field workers with supporters deemed more loyal to the Iraqi leader. The U.S. military is hoping to avoid any destruction to the oil fields, knowing the country's oil wealth will be critical to Iraq's future. To prepare for a possible conflagration, the Pentagon hired Houston-based Kellogg Brown Root, owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton Co., to draw up a plan to deal with any well fires on short notice. Last week, the Pentagon asked companies interested in providing firefighting services in Iraq to call a toll-free number. During the first Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi army blew up more than 730 oil wells in Kuwait before retreating in advance of a U.S.-led attack. Oil well firefighting crews spent nearly eight months dousing those fires. And the Pentagon says the cost to repair the destruction approached $20 billion.
Re: Iraq: Oil wells are burning
You sure these aren't US special forces on orders from Halliburton?;) Cheers, Ken Hanly Quite possible. Now the attack on Iraq is official. Don't know what to say. Sabri ++ 03/19 22:28 Treasuries Fall for Fourth Day After U.S. Begins Attack on Iraq By Beth Thomas Tokyo, March 20 (Bloomberg) -- Treasuries fell for a fourth day after President George W. Bush said U.S.-led attacks on Iraq have begun. The 10-year note yield rose as high as 4.04 percent before Bush's speech, in which he said that U.S. and allied forces were in the early stages of an effort to disarm Iraq and that selected targets were being attacked. The benchmark note has lost more than 3 percent since March 10. ``There's a lot of expectations that the conflict is going to be over in a short period of time,'' said Andrew Michl, who helps manage the equivalent of $660 million of fixed-income at ING NZ Ltd. in Auckland. ``That'll boost confidence in the global economies, and the U.S. in particular, boost equities and be negative for bonds.'' Treasury yields may rise between 20 and 30 basis points in the weeks to come, he said. The 3 7/8 percent note maturing in 2013 fell 1/32, or 32 cents per $1,000 face amount, to 99 2/32 at 12:21 p.m. in Tokyo from late New York yesterday. The yield held at 3.99 percent, after climbing from as low as 3.56 percent on March 10. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. The yield on the 1/2 percent 2005 note held at 1.72 percent. Reports of weapons fire in Baghdad came less than two hours after Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to go into exile passed with the Iraqi leader refusing to quit. Cable News Network said a cruise missile was fired at a target in the Iraqi capital. ``The market's betting very strongly that the war is going to be short and that's contributing to higher Treasury yields,'' said John Tan, fixed-income strategist at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore. ``People are taking bets right now on a short war.''
Re: Re: Iraq: Oil wells are burning
I have heard that oil is likely to be used a weapon to cover troops. oil pipelines are spilling in the desert around basra and the shore of shat alarab to avoid amphibian assaults, a huge environmental disiater maybe in the making.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproduction inthe USA?
In the last few days I've seen a number of posts indicating that the US obsession with deposing the Iraqi government is based on warding off the euro's threat to the dollar, by making sure oil is traded in dollars. I'm appending a reply I wrote to a friend who sent me one of these, asking for comment. FWIW, I still think the main impetus behind the war is the view that the security problems of concern to Washington (terrorist attacks on US interests, Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israelis) are ultimately due to the fact that the Islamic world is poorly integrated with global capitalism. Iraq is a convenient beachhead for a region-wide initiative. But here's the reply: Thanks, Martha. It was interesting to read this. The author is in the ballpark, so to speak, but gets some of the details wrong and is a little too conspiratorial for my taste. The author is basically right about the central importance of the dollars reserve currency status. This, more than anything else, has permitted the US to run huge current account (trade and transfers) deficits with impunity. The reasons are twofold: there is limited exchange rate risk, since, as long as international transactions are conducted in dollars, there is considerable transaction demand for the dollar to help bolster its value. The foreign exchange markets run almost entirely on psychology (speculative activity is 99% of all currency dealing), and the role of the dollar as a reserve currency is like an anchor that stabilizes expectations about its future gyrations. Second, there is a large, elastic pool of dollar holdings in reserve, and this buffers the need of the US to match its outflow of dollars (due to trade and transfers) with a corresponding inflow (by selling off its assets). In a nutshell, this permanent line of credit makes a US foreign exchange crisis an impossibility, as long as it continues to exist. It is not correct to say that the US is getting a no-interest loan, however: every year that we suck in half a trillion dollars or more in capital inflows (foreign purchases of bonds, stocks, etc.), we accumulate future obligations to remit profit and interest payments to those foreigners in dollars. This is very much analogous to the interest an individual would be required to pay on, say, credit card debt. I am not nit-picking in bringing this up, since the accumulation of these obligations expands the deficit on the current account and adds to the overall swelling of the dollar bubble. Eventually the bubble must burst. We do not know what the consequences will be. The best-case scenario (assuming the continuation of capitalism as we know it, which I suppose means we are talking about the second-best case scenario) is that some combination of austerity (recession/depression) in the US combined with a massive devaluation of the dollar (no less than 30% on a trade-weighted basis) will solve the problem. Less appetizing scenarios evoke images of financial panic, state-of-emergency political coups, etc. Without a doubt, the trigger for such a crisis would be the end of the dollars role as the worlds reserve currency. What holds the euro back, primarily, is the perceived (and actual) weakness of many of the peripheral countries in Euroland: Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc. These countries are at perpetual risk of running trade deficits with their EU partners, and with the consolidation of their various national currencies into a single euro, there is no longer an escape valve through devaluation. Thus, if these economies become uncompetitive and if their unemployment rates shoot up (Spains is pretty high already), either there will be a flood of southern Europeans trying to seek jobs in the wealthier, more productive regions (which would be a big political problem), or the euro as a whole would have to be devalued relative to the rest of the world. In other words, Germany and France might have to accept a currency whose value is set by the productivity and competitiveness of Iberia, Greece, etc. There is a pervasive sense that the targets set by the European monetary agreement that gave rise to the euro were achieved through smoke and mirrors, and that this could come apart at any moment. Perhaps the recent ascent of the euro indicates that those fears have receded; I dont know. We will find out soon enough, I suspect. In the meantime, oil is not a big factor. It is an important component in international trade, but only one of many. Moreover, the reserve status of the dollar is also reflected in the willingness of central banks to hold their foreign exchange in the form of dollars, and even in the dollarization of whole peripheral economies (especially in Latin America). On this last note, however, it should be borne in mind that the quasi-dollarization of some east Asian countries (S. Korea and Taiwan) appears to have ended, and the experience of Argentina should scare
Re: Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproductionin the USA?
Is this a response to JACOB LEVICH, who interpreted the Indian report, or to the report itself. I didn't read the report yet, just briefly glanced and looked respectable to me. I posted it, as a view from the South, in my web site. If it is overtly conspiratorial let me know. Thanks. Peter Dorman wrote: In the last few days I've seen a number of posts indicating that the US obsession with deposing the Iraqi government is based on warding off the euro's threat to the dollar, by making sure oil is traded in dollars. I'm appending a reply I wrote to a friend who sent me one of these, asking for comment. FWIW, I still think the main impetus behind the war is the view that the security problems of concern to Washington (terrorist attacks on US interests, Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israelis) are ultimately due to the fact that the Islamic world is poorly integrated with global capitalism. Iraq is a convenient beachhead for a region-wide initiative. But here's the reply: Louis Proyect wrote: CounterPunch February 8, 2003 New Iraq Report Yes, Tony, There is a Conspiracy by JACOB LEVICH etc. -- Frequently the only possible answer is a critique of the question and the only solution is to negate the question. Karl Marx, 1857, Grundrisse, The Chapter on Money, p.127. E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Re: Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproductionin the USA?
I was reacting to a portion of the report which made the argument about pricing oil in euros. (Iraq does this; that's one reason why they are going to be invaded.) But the response I quoted was to a different piece in which that argument was the entire analysis. Peter e. ahmet tonak wrote: Is this a response to JACOB LEVICH, who interpreted the Indian report, or to the report itself. I didn't read the report yet, just briefly glanced and looked respectable to me. I posted it, as a view from the South, in my web site. If it is overtly conspiratorial let me know. Thanks. Peter Dorman wrote: In the last few days I've seen a number of posts indicating that the US obsession with deposing the Iraqi government is based on warding off the euro's threat to the dollar, by making sure oil is traded in dollars. I'm appending a reply I wrote to a friend who sent me one of these, asking for comment. FWIW, I still think the main impetus behind the war is the view that the security problems of concern to Washington (terrorist attacks on US interests, Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israelis) are ultimately due to the fact that the Islamic world is poorly integrated with global capitalism. Iraq is a convenient beachhead for a region-wide initiative. But here's the reply: Louis Proyect wrote: CounterPunch February 8, 2003 New Iraq Report Yes, Tony, There is a Conspiracy by JACOB LEVICH etc.
Re: Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproduction in the USA?
In one sense, the US does get an interest free loan. I don't know how much US currency exists outside of the US, but the amount has to be significant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproduction in the USA?
Title: Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproduction in the USA? it's called seigneurage (the difference between what a country can buy with its currency and what it costs to produce the currency, arising from the use of its currency as means of payment) and there are some calculations about how much the US has gotten over the years. I don't have any here with me. Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/10/2003 6:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:34554] Re: Re: Iraq war driven by a crisis of overproduction in the USA? In one sense, the US does get an interest free loan. I don't know how much US currency exists outside of the US, but the amount has to be significant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq
Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official wag the dog election calendar. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Iraq
One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise. But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official wag the dog election calendar. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Re: Re: Re: Iraq
Oh - and just to clarify, I know Michael used no such reference. It is a general comment I thought important, and happened to come up in reply to his post. Gar Lipow wrote: One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise. But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official wag the dog election calendar. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Re: Re: Re: Iraq
How about, Even when Saddam had plenty of help from Cheney's buddy Jim Baker, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, so why are we going to kill all those innocent people? - Original Message - From: Gar Lipow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 8:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:28022] Re: Re: Iraq One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise. But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official wag the dog election calendar. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq
A good concise statement the only change I would make is in tense. Between sanctions and regular bombings we are killing innocent people now. The question is why we are going to kill more of them. pms wrote: How about, Even when Saddam had plenty of help from Cheney's buddy Jim Baker, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, so why are we going to kill all those innocent people? - Original Message - From: Gar Lipow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 8:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:28022] Re: Re: Iraq One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise. But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official wag the dog election calendar. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Re: Iraq and Middle East
MP: Hmm, one could say instead that Sharon has precluded the possibility of Bush attackng Saddaam by his invasion of the PA. You want more informed speculation, trey Luttwak here. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020408-221163,00.html Michael Pugliese I haven't read the Time Magazine piece (try to avoid the publication if at all possible). Why does Luttwak strike me as a total wacko most of the time? Hasn't Sharon agreed to 'expedite' his military campaign against the PLO? Hussein probably doesn't even have any Scuds to launch at Israel this time around, so it would seem that Israel has become the key ally in the campaign to take Hussein out. Perhaps the Bush regime really thinks it can accomplish the removal of Hussein with Israel, some Kurds out of N. Iraq, and the Southern Shia Arabs. As outrageous as it might sound, what makes you think the current regime wouldn't think just about anything is possible now? It's no less outrageous than other things they've uttered out loud already. Incidentally, it's been my theory that one way the 9-11 perps got into the US so easily was that for some their cover was that they were being trained as part of the anti-Hussein coalition. The Senate made this a priority from 1998, and it was given new emphasis once the Bush regime took power--like one of the first things they did in foreign policy and military planning in early spring 2001 . So the CIA and the Mossad might well have been responsible for Atta and company getting to the US with so little scrutiny. Al Qaeda types also infiltrated the Kurds. Charles Jannuzi
Re: Iraq and Middle East
My servers have been down and out for the count and since I never got a copy back from the listserv, I'm assuming that my reply to this thread never made it to PEN-L. If it has, forgive the repeated posting. Having written what I did before Blair met the senior Bush weenie in Texas, I think I sound at least pseudo-prophetic here. CJ Hmm, one could say instead that Sharon has precluded the possibility of Bush attackng Saddaam by his invasion of the PA. You want more informed speculation, trey Luttwak here. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020408-221163,00.html Michael Pugliese I haven't read the Time Magazine piece (try to avoid the publication if at all possible). Why does Luttwak strike me as a total wacko most of the time? Hasn't Sharon agreed to 'expedite' his military campaign against the PLO? Hussein probably doesn't even have any Scuds to launch at Israel this time around, so it would seem that Israel has become the key ally in the campaign to take Hussein out. Perhaps the Bush regime really thinks it can accomplish the removal of Hussein with Israel, some Kurds out of N. Iraq, and the Southern Shia Arabs. As outrageous as it might sound, what makes you think the current regime wouldn't think just about anything is possible now? It's no less outrageous than other things they've uttered out loud already. Incidentally, it's been my theory that one way the 9-11 perps got into the US so easily was that for some their cover was that they were being trained as part of the anti-Hussein coalition. The Senate made this a priority from 1998, and it was given new emphasis once the Bush regime took power--like one of the first things they did in foreign policy and military planning in early spring 2001 . So the CIA and the Mossad might well have been responsible for Atta and company getting to the US with so little scrutiny. Al Qaeda types also infiltrated the Kurds. Charles Jannuzi
Re: Iraq and Middle East
Amazing. The lost e-mail shows up right at the time I re-send it. Charles J
RE: Iraq and Middle East
Hmm, one could say instead that Sharon has precluded the possibility of Bush attackng Saddaam by his invasion of the PA. You want more informed speculation, trey Luttwak here. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020408-221163,00.html Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Karl Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4/4/02 10:28:05 PM The war on terror, as it misleadingly called by Bush, including Bush suggestion to launch a war against Iraq may have encouraged the sustained and intense aggression mounted by Sharon against Palestinian Arabs. Because such a war might encourage Saddam to launch an attack on Israel may feel the need to wipe out its internal Palestinian opposition --an opposition that might join up with Iraq in such a war-- and even push the Arab population into Jordan. Here is what may be a classic example of Bush's aggressive strategy contributing to international instability. Bush, if he really intends to attack Iraq, may support such action by Sharon. Click below to access Communism List site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Yours etc., Karl Carlile
Re: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Here is the most recent stuff on Iraq and Kuwait agreement: Qatar Says Iraq, Kuwait Reach Deal at Arab Summit Wed Mar 27, 1:55 PM ET BEIRUT (Reuters) - Qatar said that it and fellow Gulf Arab state Oman had persuaded Gulf War (news - web sites) foes Iraq and Kuwait to agree on a statement at an Arab summit Wednesday. The issue of Iraq and Kuwait is now resolved and we have agreed on a statement between Iraq and Kuwait which is acceptable to the two sides, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani told reporters after the first day of the Arab summit in Beirut. A Kuwaiti minister said the document included new Iraqi compromises and a pledge by Baghdad to the effect that it would not repeat its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf confirmed only that a deal had been reached but did not confirm the Kuwaiti account of its contents. Delegates said the head of the Kuwaiti delegation, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, had applauded the speech of his Iraqi counterpart Izzat Ibrahim at the summit. - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:03 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24352] Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy Here is the article I based my opinion on: From the Times of India Iraq breaks ground at summit, recognises Kuwaiti rights AFP [ MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 9:23:29 PM ] Possibly the above article was written before the first day of the summit ended? Several others, such as Jordan Times and CNN, verify the Reuters story. http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/news/news4.htm http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/03/28/arab.summit.01/index.ht ml This one, Lebanese The Daily Star, seems somewhat in line with the AFP story. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/26_03_02/art1.htm Interesting.
RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Ken writes: . By the way I understand that Kuwait is not in favor of a US attack and that Iraq has just recently made conciliatory gestures toward Kuwait. ... Ken, This happened very recently. Sabri +++ Old Foes Kuwait and Iraq Clash at Arab Meeting Mon Mar 25, 3:07 PM ET BEIRUT (Reuters) - Gulf foes Kuwait and Iraq clashed at an Arab foreign ministers' meeting in Beirut on Monday, with a Kuwaiti minister accusing Baghdad of blocking any attempt to bridge differences between the two countries. There is no serious change in the Iraqi policy toward Kuwait, Kuwait's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah told reporters after a day-long meeting to prepare for this week's Arab summit. The faces have changed, the messenger has changed, but the message remains the same, he said in reference to Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who was appointed to his post late last year. Sheikh Mohammad said the meeting failed to agree on the wording of a statement on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti rift after the Iraqi delegation refused to pledge never to attack Kuwait again and in return requested Kuwaiti guarantees to preserve Iraq's security. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and occupied it for seven months. A U.S.-led coalition drove Iraq troops from Kuwait in 1991. The Kuwaiti minister said the situation between Iraq and Kuwait was discussed in depth at the meeting, but he requested that the issue be kept off the agenda of the Arab summit because of Iraq's hard line. If Iraq rejects the proposed formulas, then we want the whole topic dropped by the summit, Sheikh Mohammad said. There was no immediate reaction from the Iraqi delegation, but delegates from other countries confirmed the meeting failed to reach an agreement. Asked whether Kuwait would join a possible Arab call to reject a U.S. attack on Iraq, Sheikh Mohammad said: In as much as Iraq is threatened by the United States, we are threatened by Iraq. You can't speak of Iraq's security in isolation from the security of Kuwait. Speculation has grown about possible U.S. military action against Iraq since President Bush (news - web sites) labeled the country as part of an axis of evil along with North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran.
Re: RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Here is the article I based my opinion on: From the Times of India Iraq breaks ground at summit, recognises Kuwaiti rights AFP [ MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 9:23:29 PM ] EIRUT: Iraq has softened its line towards Kuwait, saying for the first time in a formal document to an Arab summit that it recognises the right to security and independence of the neighbour it occupied in 1990, Arab officials said here Monday. The new stance in Beirut, taken as Baghdad faces a threatened US attack, is in marked contrast to last year's Amman summit. President Saddam Hussein's regime then played the party-pooper, blocking any attempt to work out a resolution on Iraqi-Kuwait relations. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri even told AFP Iraq did not want to get involved, considering that this year's summit in the Lebanese capital should concentrate on supporting the Palestinian cause. He said that only when it learned that the Kuwaitis had asked for their continued grievances to be put on the summit agenda that Iraq had countered with a document of its own. An Arab League official said Kuwait had taken a relatively hard line, listing its complaints since the Iraqi invasion in August 1990 and subsequent seven-month occupation and the question of Kuwaitis still missing from the war. The Iraqi document was conciliatory, the official said, expressing respect for the security and independence of Kuwait and stressing that the priority for Arab states was to concentrate on the essential questions, namely the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and threats against Arab countries. Arab ministers also said they had been pleased to see Sabri and Kuwait's minister of state for foreign affairs, Sheikh Mohammad al-Sabah, having a constructive dialogue in an informal meeting of the Arab world's top diplomats on Sunday. There were no harsh exchanges between the two countries as is sometimes the case in this sort of meeting, one official said. He added that it was expected that some sort of satisfactory compromise would be reached in the summit's final declaration to be approved at Thursday's end to the two-day summit. Saddam's regime has been stepping up efforts to improve ties with other Arab states, especially since US President George Bush's administration lumped it into an axis of evil with Iran and North Korea in January. Washington has intimated that Baghdad would be the next target in the war against terrorism because of its alleged continued development of weapons of mass destruction and its refusal to let international arms inspectors back into the country. Arab countries, some of which joined the US-led coalition under Bush's father that ended the occupation of Kuwait, have strongly opposed any US strikes on Iraq, and a clause to that effect is expected to figure in the summit declaration. It is a far cry from the Amman summit, when Iraq objected violently to a draft resolution that mentioned respect for Kuwait's independence and sovereignty within internationally recognised borders, non-interference in its internal affairs and the need for Iraq to adopt policies along these lines. Following Amman, then Iraqi foreign minister Mohammad Said Sahhaf was sacked by Saddam and replaced by Sabri, considered more moderate. Saddam has not left his country since the 1991 Gulf war, but Vice President Ezzat Ibrahim, was the first participant at the summit proper to arrive in Beirut on Monday. He came by road from Iraq through Syria, another long-time rival with which ties have now been mended. Ken writes: . By the way I understand that Kuwait is not in favor of a US attack and that Iraq has just recently made conciliatory gestures toward Kuwait. ... Ken, This happened very recently. Sabri +++ Old Foes Kuwait and Iraq Clash at Arab Meeting Mon Mar 25, 3:07 PM ET BEIRUT (Reuters) - Gulf foes Kuwait and Iraq clashed at an Arab foreign ministers' meeting in Beirut on Monday, with a Kuwaiti minister accusing Baghdad of blocking any attempt to bridge differences between the two countries. There is no serious change in the Iraqi policy toward Kuwait, Kuwait's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah told reporters after a day-long meeting to prepare for this week's Arab summit. The faces have changed, the messenger has changed, but the message remains the same, he said in reference to Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who was appointed to his post late last year. Sheikh Mohammad said the meeting failed to agree on the wording of a statement on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti rift after the Iraqi delegation refused to pledge never to attack Kuwait again and in return requested Kuwaiti guarantees to preserve Iraq's security. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and occupied it for seven months. A U.S.-led coalition drove Iraq troops from Kuwait in 1991. The Kuwaiti minister said the situation between Iraq and Kuwait was discussed in depth at the meeting, but he requested
Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Here is the article I based my opinion on: From the Times of India Iraq breaks ground at summit, recognises Kuwaiti rights AFP [ MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 9:23:29 PM ] Possibly the above article was written before the first day of the summit ended? Several others, such as Jordan Times and CNN, verify the Reuters story. http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/news/news4.htm http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/03/28/arab.summit.01/index.ht ml This one, Lebanese The Daily Star, seems somewhat in line with the AFP story. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/26_03_02/art1.htm Interesting.
Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Maybe some of our Turkish Pen-lers might have comments on this. Cheers, Ken Hanly Ken, I am not ignoring your question. I was waiting for a response from those Turkish Pen-lers who live in Turkey. As far as I remember from an earlier post of Michael, from some six months ago or so, there are some. Very interesting things are happening in Ankara in these days and I am as curious as you are about getting insider information/comments. In the mean time, I will look for a few English articles on the topic. Best, Sabri
RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
This doesn't say anything about the economy but it shows how important Turkey is to the US operation in Iraq. Sabri Former CIA chief says Iraq-Al-Qaeda links obvious Turkish Daily News - March 25, 2002 Former director of the U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA, James Woolsey said that links between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were obvious, commenting that only Turkey's support of an operation on Iraq would be vital. Taking part in a CNN television program, Woolsey spoke about the possibility of the United States opening their second stage of the war on terrorism against Iraq. Woolsey drew attention to CIA Director George Tenet's remarks at the U.S. Congress, where he referred to the links between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda network, which was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Woolsey stated that Iraq has been training terrorists on how to hijack with knives, and that the Iraqi intelligence officials' contacts with leading terrorist Muhammed Atta in the Czech Republic have been confirmed by Czech intelligence. Woolsey indicated that there was considerable evidence to prove the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link. Arguing that the United States would not need the support of any state apart from Turkey, Woolsey said that Turkey's support was crucial. I think difficult negotiations will be needed, he stated. The support of Kuwait is also needed, but their support will gradually be provided. We need the support of Britain and Saudi Arabia, but Turkey is the key state here. Its support should be secured. If the help of the other states cannot be secured, there would not be significant consequences, because, for a military strike, we just need a few U.S. infantry, which means a few good men, Woolsey continued. Michael O'Hanlon of The Brookings Institute, based in Washington, on the other hand, said that there was limited evidence of links between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda. It would mean committing suicide for Saddam to be on close terms with the Al-Qaeda. We don't see strong evidence, such as extensive cooperation, financing contacts, weapons of mass destruction or education, he said. Stating that Saddam knows he would be toppled in the event of any step taken by him against the United States, O'Hanlon said that if a serious link between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda were to be found, the United States should seriously think about ousting him.
RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
These should give you some information on the current economic conditions, of course, if you take them at the face value. Sabri +++ Privatization Minister says sell-offs so far unsatisfactory Turkish Daily News, March 25, 2002 Turkey has carried out $7.4 billion worth of sell-offs since 1985, which is an unsatisfactory figure, Privatization Minister Yilmaz Karakoyunlu said. Of this total, $4 billion has been performed in the last four years. In response to an official question by Saadet (happiness or contentment) Party (SP) Deputy Zeki Celik, Karakoyunlu said a shortage of capital and technology accumulation and political instability had deterred privatization over the past 15 years. Substantial progress has been made in privatization in the past four years, particularly during 1998-2000, he added. Turkey aims to carry out $1.5 billion worth of privatizations in 2002. In its first major privatization attempt since the financial crisis that broke in February 2001, the government last week secured $183 million in proceeds from the secondary public offering of a 16.5 percent stake in oil retailer POAS. Another major company slated for privatization this year is oil refiner Tupras, which the government wants to put on a third offer by June. Looking at the track record on privatization, the government has largely failed to meet its targets. Turkey projected $4 billion in privatization receipts in 1999 and managed to raise $38 million. In 2000 the target was $5.2 billion and the figure that actually turned out was $2.7 billion. Last year, the government expected $1 billion worth of privatization operations and managed only $119 million. Karakoyunlu suggested that the agency responsible for privatization should acquire autonomy, so that sell-offs can be carried out more efficiently and swiftly. He added that work on the legislative changes that will establish an independent privatization body has been completed. The government has drafted a privatization bill to accelerate sell-off operations by handing over the final decision-making to a privatization agency, which will partly transform from the current Privatization Administration. The bill empowers the Cabinet for marking the companies slated for privatization, but after that the autonomous privatization agency will be responsible for the whole sale procedure. -- OECD urges time, patience for economic growth Turkish Daily News, March 25, 2002 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said recent developments in Turkish financial markets were an indication that the Turkish economy has started picking up. Economic recovery will resume, provided that Turkey implements the measures in the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-backed program as planned, OECD Turkey desk chief Alexandra Bibbee said in remarks quoted by the Anatolia news agency. But a little time and patience is needed, Bibbee added. OECD chief Bibbee also said they need fresh economic data to make predictions about the economy. Financial markets in Turkey have stabilized since late 2001, on the back of the optimism created by the new IMF-backed economic program. The U.S. dollar has weakened to below 1.35 million to the lira as of last week's close, from above 1.6 million in October last year. Lower-than-expected February inflation figures have also created optimism, prompting the Central Bank to cut short-term interest rates twice in a month's time, thereby triggering a rate cut spree. Despite increased optimism in the markets, however, economic actors are not so positive about the outlook, as there is yet too little -- if any -- evidence that would suggest the growth process has resumed. Bibbee's remarks address concerns in business and industry circles that the economy might be heading for a deflation under tight IMF policies, while international finance institutions see the strict implementation of the program as the key to resolving once and for all the problems that deter economic growth. In an earlier report on Turkey the OECD had suggested that the emergency issue in the Turkish economy was a restructuring in the banking sector and that economic stability depends on sustained reform efforts. The OECD has also cautioned of the wide gaps in income distribution, calling for a fair wage policy across social masses.
Re: RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
Former director of the U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA, James Woolsey said that links between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were obvious, commenting that only Turkey's support of an operation on Iraq would be vital. Taking part in a CNN television program, Woolsey spoke about the possibility of the United States opening their second stage of the war on terrorism against Iraq. Interesting, especially in light of Woolsey's statements on the morning of 9/11 in a phone interview with Peter Jennings on ABC. He said the attack was due to regulations imposed on the CIA and the FBI after the Church Commission hearings in 1970's (These supposedly ended domestic spying, assassinations of foreign leaders and the FBI's COINTELPRO program which will come under scrutiny again on April 8 in Oakland CA in the Judi Bari vs. FBI Oakland Police trial in federal court.) His interview was immediately followed by Jennings interviewing, again by phone, former Secretary James Baker (the architect of the Florida vote scam) who said almost exactly the same thing as Woolsey. Jennings had to ask what the commission in the 70's was. It seemed to me at the time that Woolsey and Baker were reading from the same script. This was before the buildings collapsed and when all the networks were talking about the plane that had crashed into Camp David, or that it is believed that one of the planes was headed for Camp David. I've always wondered if Woolsey and Baker got their scripts from the same people who floated the unfounded -- but important -- rumor about Camp David, 9/11 being the anniversary of the accords and all. By the way, Jennings did ask Woolsey then or since about the terrorism regulators say Sun HealthCare Group, Inc imposes on many of this nation's elderly. Woolsey sits on its board. Dan Scanlan Grass Valley CA
Re: RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy
The US simply does not want any nation to have an effective defence against it, if that can be avoided. Iraq is no doubt attempting to develop weapons that would make US attempts to simply impose their will on Iraq quite costly. The US is convinced it has the power to simply replace Hussein one way or another and install a more compliant regime. By the way I understand that Kuwait is not in favor of a US attack and that Iraq has just recently made conciliatory gestures toward Kuwait. Given that the US is publicly committed to a unitary state in Iraq I can't see how they can get much support from the Kurds or even Shiites in the south who might want to join Iran. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:01 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24320] RE: Re: Iraq war and the Turkish economy This doesn't say anything about the economy but it shows how important Turkey is to the US operation in Iraq. Sabri Former CIA chief says Iraq-Al-Qaeda links obvious Turkish Daily News - March 25, 2002 Former director of the U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA, James Woolsey said that links between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were obvious, commenting that only Turkey's support of an operation on Iraq would be vital. Taking part in a CNN television program, Woolsey spoke about the possibility of the United States opening their second stage of the war on terrorism against Iraq. Woolsey drew attention to CIA Director George Tenet's remarks at the U.S. Congress, where he referred to the links between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda network, which was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Woolsey stated that Iraq has been training terrorists on how to hijack with knives, and that the Iraqi intelligence officials' contacts with leading terrorist Muhammed Atta in the Czech Republic have been confirmed by Czech intelligence. Woolsey indicated that there was considerable evidence to prove the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link. Arguing that the United States would not need the support of any state apart from Turkey, Woolsey said that Turkey's support was crucial. I think difficult negotiations will be needed, he stated. The support of Kuwait is also needed, but their support will gradually be provided. We need the support of Britain and Saudi Arabia, but Turkey is the key state here. Its support should be secured. If the help of the other states cannot be secured, there would not be significant consequences, because, for a military strike, we just need a few U.S. infantry, which means a few good men, Woolsey continued. Michael O'Hanlon of The Brookings Institute, based in Washington, on the other hand, said that there was limited evidence of links between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda. It would mean committing suicide for Saddam to be on close terms with the Al-Qaeda. We don't see strong evidence, such as extensive cooperation, financing contacts, weapons of mass destruction or education, he said. Stating that Saddam knows he would be toppled in the event of any step taken by him against the United States, O'Hanlon said that if a serious link between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda were to be found, the United States should seriously think about ousting him.
Re: iraq sanctions: letters to the nation
I would strongly recommend that people cancel their Nation subscriptions. Go to the Against the Current, In These Times, The Progressive, Z Magazine, etc. Rakesh I didn't mean to exclude News and Letter, and of course i wasn't talking about monthly theoretical journals like rrpe, mr, csn, nst, science and society, race and class, etc. rb
RE: Re: iraq sanctions: letters to the nation
I don't get it. Lot's of journals are now using web sites to publish extended material that is too expensive to print in hardcopy. How is this different? -Original Message- From: Rakesh Bhandari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21146] Re: iraq sanctions: letters to the nation I would strongly recommend that people cancel their Nation subscriptions. Go to the Against the Current, In These Times, The Progressive, Z Magazine, etc. Rakesh I didn't mean to exclude News and Letter, and of course i wasn't talking about monthly theoretical journals like rrpe, mr, csn, nst, science and society, race and class, etc. rb
Re: RE: Re: iraq sanctions: letters to the nation
I don't get it. Lot's of journals are now using web sites to publish extended material that is too expensive to print in hardcopy. How is this different? martin, why would this be considered extended or supplemental material? What the Nation excluded from its in print section was a point-by-point refutation of an analysis that it had decided to run. why should that refutation, esp coming at it was from a former inspector, be relegated to the extended material section? Why should it not be there in every library for anyone to see? And we obviously do not share the sense of the gravity of the matter. Plus, you didn't answer my other question: why was the letter not the main article and cortright's response in on extended material website that will be erased after a few months? If you're still not getting my point, i'll try again later. rakesh
RE: iraq
The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. [Re: can we trust Iraqi sources? From: farbuthnot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources? Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:34:31 + -- From: andrew mandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Voices uk [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources? Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2001, 7:53 pm Hi. i had a question regarding the figures that may have been already answered but if so i missed it. How accurate would the pre 1991 mortality rates be that I suppose are the basis for sanction related death estimates. It seems coming out of the Iran Iraq war it would have been in the governments interest to see those figures deflated to add to the sense of the victory that wasn't if those rates were deflated obviously that would make things even more messy. Andrew At 07:38 PM 12/17/01 -, Voices uk wrote: I've not much to add to Per's e-mail, except perhaps to stress that these remarks extend beyond the child mortality figures (which seem to be the focus of Per's e-mail). It's a matter of historical record that the Iraqi Government has often put out figures - and made statements - that are either misleading, false or inconsistent with earlier figures / statements of their own (and, as Per says, they are also clearly *not* a disinterested party). Dirk actually sent me a classic example last week - an AFP report (December 5th) in which the Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammad Mehdi Saleh 'accused the UN sanctions committee ... of blocking six billion worth of contracts concluded within the framework of the oil-for-food program.' According to this report Saleh claimed that 'six billion dollars worth of contracts were *still* blocked by the UN sanctions committee' (emphasis added, unlike the report Glenn mentions there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity here). Of course, the reporter had no problem finding out - and reporting - that there were actually $4.37 billion worth of goods on hold. Finally, Dirk wrote that 'There have been so many independent reports, with independent figures.' However if we're talking about child mortality figures this isn't actually true. Indeed, in his March '99 'Morbidity and Mortality' paper Richard Garfield noted that, whilst there was good data available on child nutrition, water quality and a number of other social and health indicators which influence child mortality, data was 'not available from any reliable studies on mortality since 1991' (the oft-cited 1995 FAO mission study 'suffered from serious flaws in methods and interpretation' and its results were subsequently withdrawn by its authors). This remained the case until the August '99 UNICEFsurvey. If it weren't for the UNICEF report the pro-sanctions lobby would find it much easier to claim that the humanitarian crisis was a propaganda fabrication, or deny its scale (for a good - if extreme - example of this see eg. Anthony Cordemann's book 'Iraq and the War of Sanctions'). I think it's also fair to say that the UNICEF report played an important role in shifting public opinion over here in the UK. Best wishes, Gabriel -Original Message- From: Dirk Adriaensens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Per Klevnäs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 16 December 2001 18:02 Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources? Dear Per and others, Prof.Waterlow, the pope of the nutritionists, wrote a letter in november 1991 to the Lancet, appealing at the UN to monitor child mortality and the food situation on a monthly basis (J.C. Waterlow, Malnutrition in Iraq in The Lancet, 338,ii,23/11/1991). The answer in the Lancet of 21-28/12/1991: there is compelling evidence that economic sanctions against Iraq have led to dangerous shortage of essential commodities, including food and medicine. Immediate action, rather than statistical analyses, is what's needed to avert a public health disaster in that country. A report of the WHO (The effect of Embargo on Iraqi Children health status) in 1993 says: it is not necessary to do another study to demonstrate that the embargo has a negative impact on the health status of the Iraqi children. What will the political decision be if there is an increase of mortality with 200 or 400%. Does it really depend on the amount of the increase? Is there a figure past which the embargo is no longer tolerated on humanitarian grounds? There have been so many independent reports, with independent figures. The Harvard Study Team, The effect of the Gulf Crisis on the Children of Iraq, published in the New England Journal Of Medicine, 1991. There was the International Study Team, Infant and Child Mortality and Nutritional Status of Iraqi children after the Gulf Conflict, Cambridge, april 1992. There was the FAO report in 1993 Nutritional Status Assessment
