War is over?

Which it really is right now, and it's been quite something. Winning the 'peace' is going to be hella difficult, but right this second what's been happening today is, as Ed noted, exactly what was desired when it came to the flowers and all (the looting, another story entirely). Took a bit longer than they anticipated but they avoided the Berlin 1945 scenario; they're still going to be outright hated in Baghdad if they don't try and fix basic things up quickly and then get the hell out. If (and personally I think this might just be the biggest if yet) they can get a temporary civil admin in place and get the water and the power going at full speed again at the least, along with medical help, then the crapshoot might pay off for BushCo (and the propaganda gets even better for them, though there's still that 'pesky' WMD question...).

War's not over yet, of course -- the northern front is still a question, and I'll be very interested to see what happens up in Tikrit, Hussein's home base. And more consequences have yet to be addressed...

Imagine if you lowered the age of consent to 14 because Donald Rumsfeld wanted to screw a teen. Then he did that, and zipped up his pants. Would you say 'Phew, it's all over. No more underage sex'? No, you would expect a lot more 14 year olds to get fucked. Because the laws against it lie in tatters, and the social work department is allowed to do no more than mop up the sperm.

See Ned, your argument's on shaky ground from the get-go.

The cameras catch some protesters waving banners at the tanks. They zoom in on one, and the commentators try to spell it out, but the words aren't clear.

'What does it say? 'Go home...' I can't see... 'Go home American...'

Then the wind bulges the banner until the word 'WANKERS' comes into view. The commentators stop their transcription. 'Some strong language there,' they say, as the camera pans back to the tanks.

>>>>> Zimbabwe and crush that evil Mugabe.

Jack Straw in flames.

Burning Bush.

Brilliant! Was that actually directed at those who came there as human shields or just the troops? Either way, hilarious and telling.

This is what I like about live coverage and changeable situations. You get to see the fiction threadbare and barefaced.

It's also rather fascinating to see the long, slow process of building what will undoubtedly be the lead image in all the major news bulletins tonight and on the front of tomorrow's papers: a statue of Saddam getting a rope slung around it, ready for toppling. This image is being constructed with great difficulty. The Iraqis (protected, and, one suspects, encouraged or even paid, by the US troops) are both chipping away at the pedestal with hammers, and slinging rope around Saddam's neck. But to topple the statue they'll need a US tank to help. But the US military stage managers probably want it to look like a totally Iraqi gesture, so they're staying at a distance. So it's going very, very slowly. The statue is four times the height of the little men clustering around its knees. They won't be able to topple it alone. But the evening news and tomorrow's papers are waiting for that image, and BBC, CNN and Euronews are broadcasting the scene live.

Or maybe, just maybe, public opinion in Baghdad at the moment is far more divided than people on both sides of the debate are giving it credit for.

I think this whole thing is actually a rather accurate metaphor for the entire Iraq shenanigen.

We keep hearing how 'extraordinary' the scene is, how 'the symbolism' is 'simple and powerful', denoting the toppling of the man who oppressed his own people, etc. There is a real sense of 'the money shot'. The commentator keeps repeating 'extraordinary'. He sounds like the guy on the mike when the Hindenberg caught fire or something. 'Breathtaking...'

The marines are now moving the crowd back. No more pretense that it's Iraqis doing it. Two more 'extraordinaries'.

Ragi: 'Extraordinary powerful symbolism... the symbolism of this, beamed all around the world, any moment now they're going to pull the statue down, it's a breathtaking moment, it really is'. (Sounding more like a Brazilian football commentator at the moment of the winning goal.) Remarkable. There's Saddam Hussein, his arm outstretched, and in front of the world's television cameras, he's about to be torn down. It's symbolic of utter humiliation. They're pulling it down out of sheer gratitude. I'm just going to try and find out what the problem is. The cable needs to be around his neck.'

they should leave the statue up: it looks more like peter lorre than saddam.

Yikes! I wonder what ol' Immanuel "the ends don’t justify the means" Kant would have to say about that?

Saddam is seeking refuge in the Russian embassy!

uh, no:

"It burst into flames! Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Get this, Charlie! Get this, Charlie! It's fire and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning, bursting into flames and is falling on the mooring mast, and all the folks agree that this is terrible. This is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world! Oh, it's crashing...oh, four or five hundred feet into the sky, and it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. There's smoke, and there's flames, now, and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast...Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here!"

"I told you...I can't even talk to people...around there. It's -- I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest, it's just laying there, a mass of smoking wreckage, and everybody can hardly breathe and talk...I, I'm sorry. Honest, I can hardly breathe. I'm going to step inside where I cannot see it. Charlie, that's terrible. I -- Listen folks, I'm going to have to stop for a minute, because I've lost my voice...This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed....."

http://play.rbn.com/?url=aplive/nynyt/live/live.smi&proto=rtsp

Yeah, they just pulled down the U.S. flag. Brilliant.

O, the society of the spectacle!

Iraqi flag NOW.

Still going on Saturday's march here in London, where I hope people will rail against all gentlemen's agreements being sorted out in various for-profit boardrooms (there are already scaremongering May Day previews going up in all the papers). Anyone else besides me, Ed and Kate up for this?

It's also the only link I have to what's going on at the moment... keep it up.

(trying to sound excited in a commentator sort of way)

I hope the citizens get out of the way soon.

One thing that's going to be annoying over the next few days is explaining to the gung-hoes why although there is an outcome everyone wanted (the deposition of Saddam) the end does not justify the means one bit. The Iraqis had reason to be scared of their 'elected leader' but Americans - because 95 per cent of us are so complacent about our freedoms - should be the ones shitting it about their very own 'elected leader'.

oops, it's out there already

FALLEN

the whole thing is a quite silly.

Anyway, Random Speculation Time -- something that hit me on the way in to work must have been talked about somewhere already, namely what happens with the US troops in Saudi Arabia? They've been there over a decade ostensibly to keep an eye on Mr. Hussein, and they've allegedly been one of the chief spurs of bin Laden in particular, if he's still around. How much will you wager that for various political and potentially strategic reasons the troops are removed and stationed over in Iraq instead?

In particular, I can especially see somebody saying, "Hey, if you don't mind, we'll just hold onto airfields H2 and H3, thanks." And how convenient that they ARE in fact next to Syria...

the end does not justify the means one bit

I happen to agree. But BushCo will maximize the spin, which I think we're also perfectly agreed on. The argument that really has to be countered from that sphere is, if it's even hinted at, "Okay, you think war wasn't the answer for removing Hussein. What exactly was and why?" Was there anything else that would have gotten rid of the Ba'ath structure as it stood? Sanctions did nothing, and it didn't just immediately fall over even with an invasion. If there's no answer to the question, then that's going to be a sticking point for a long while to come -- even if no WMD evidence turns up, now. Because the whole thing fulfills the American dream/myth of patting ourselves on the back for doing 'the right thing,' however it is twisted to other purposes, and that's a hard mythology to argue around (thankfully it can be done).

And Momus, the history of US intervention is a long and storied one well before the last three years. Unfortunately.

Quote of the war, so far.

"Freedom's taste is unquenchable"...

Is it just me, or is this an atrocious grammatical construct? How can "taste" be "unquenchable"? WTF!?!

Baghdad :: Andrew Gilligan :: 1432GMT

I want to talk to you about my favourite Saddam statues, in anticipation they may not be here for much longer.

One of my favourites is a moody looking Saddam on a tall plinth. And there are tiny little models of Mrs Thatcher, George Bush Senior and the President of France, Jaqcues Chirac cringing at his feet.

This is a memorial to what the Saddam regime called the American occupation of Kuwait - the first Gulf War. Now I imagine that will probably come down pretty soon.

Theres another one by the telephone exchange saying "Saddam on the phone". They tend to be themed, these things.

I wanna see pictures! Wonder if there's a site for Saddam's statues...

Well, to steal this 'chanelling the feelings of the people' trick from Rageh, I'd like to say that I think I speak for a sizeable majority of the people in Europe, Asia and China when I say that we felt no immediate threat to world peace from Saddam Hussein. However we do feel a very imminent threat to world peace from Rumsfeld, Cheney and the crew. I am thirsting unquenchably to see their heads -- and smug Ari fucking footnote Fleischer's -- paraded through the streets of DC, hopefully next year.

I didn't feel any threat from Hussein either, Momus, for crying out loud! I don't buy the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection, right now there's been jack about any confirmed WMD, etc. etc. The whole stupid thing is an exercise in geopolitical folderol with terrible implications and too many goddamn people dead and permanently maimed! If I'm to be faulted for considered that while the means don't justify the end that no matter what the images and what the spin there's still SOMETHING good about what was ended and that we're seeing it and that any cohesive argument or action against BushCo can't deny it and will have to work around it and the images created, then just say it.

Quite right -- I had noticed that but hadn't picked up on it properly...

< /susceptible to FleisherPropaganda >

Saddam was exactly that. Iraq is a diverse nation brought to you by Britain (you know, the ones who gave you 'The Israeli Palestinian Problem') which can only now fall into warring squabbles without Saddam's iron fist. Just watch and see.

Cross-post. Your last post is more temperate, but I'm a bit confused as to why you see "symbols of national unity" as so important when those seem like precisely the sort of things you would denigrate in such places as the UK and the US. Note that some Iraqis have been hoisting pre-Saddam Iraqi flags, so there is obviously some conception of national identity that goes farther than Baathism.

Lady, if you blah blah

I think the big sticks held by turkey and iran, not to mention US/UK will keep iraq together for the time being.

Well sure, Momus--there are American and British troops occupying their cities, with Saddam's officers in hiding, killed, or on the run--surely the "choice" seems to be between Saddam and the West. It was the inevitable result of this war and is regrettable. But how this inevitably leads to the worst possible scenario (and how one can recite such scenarios with a bit of a toldyouso smugness) is beyond my ken.

Although Saddam had help from the Americans in his early years (when the Americans didn't like the left wing Kassem) and his mid-years (when the Americans didn't like the left wing Iranian revolution), he spent much of his time in the 70s buttering up the Russians. His role model was Stalin.

Me: 'By who? Dick Cheney, looking for some cookies of his own?'

'Saddam Our Father'

'Indeed You The Father Of Ouday'

(nobody likes anybody who goes "told you so!")

"They're in Bashar Assad's pants!!! Let's invade Syria!!!"

From the New York Times:

Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: 'Senior Hussein regime officials are moving into Syria.'

Now they 'won't find' there what they 'didn't find' in Iraq ('not finding', in their logic, being evidence of guilt and pretext for invasion). It's all Alice in Wonderland, it's all Monty Python.

Hm...is Syria a member of OPEC? Just a sudden thought here.

(the Iraq debacle in a nutshell, Mr. President)

Prove it in 2004. Otherwise you're guilty until voted innocent.

Good call, Kerry. :-)

The key word here is "easily". I don't think anyone is nieve enough to believe that with the ex-fedayeen, Kurdish separtists, and Iran backed militas in the south that it will be easy. But its certainly not impossible either. It wasn't impossible to change Germany or Japan from being "warlike cultures" to being paragons of peace and industrialism in the modern day. Iraq certainly has all the ability to be (mostly secular nation, lots of oil, rivers for hydropower, higher literacy rate that the US) as well. There's just gonna be a lot of hard work for the next few years. And hopefully, no one will get to greedy. I don't totally believe that will happen either, but at least allow it the chance to occur. Everyone here is OTM: Saddam's image, like that of Stalin (USSR broke up) or Hitler (Germany and its empire got wasted) are not images of "unity" in any way.

Also, let's hope the stupid "France and Germany are stupid" rhetoric being pumped out by the morons of America ceases. Our interests there didn't juve with their's. Let's get over it already. More people should see the Louvre and Koln Cathedral in their lifetime. Plus, I don't want to have to hit someone for saying "freedom fries".

Hell, let's just be happy the part of the war where we worried about B-2s hitting schools full of kids is over.

What would be the point of that?

Love isn't policy. Conflating citizens and government there goes a few steps further than holding voters responsible for the actions of the elected representatives to whom they've delegated power, regardless of whether the latter is sensible.

Momus, my point should be obvious. If you're criticizing us "Americans" for our government's policy, you should be careful enough to note that many of us didn't vote for this government, and many of us took part in actions "symbolizing" (there's that word again) our opposition to this war. We can't all be international dandy bon-vivant recording artists who skip around from country to country. God forbid some of us "Americans" may actually enjoy living here, despite our current joke of an administration. Or that some of us can't find jobs where we can jet-set around the world lip-synchingproviding quality entertainment.

(hoping sincere flattery might gets us somewhere)

"Again this very moment of transparent clarity (things are presented in their utmost nakedness: a lone man against the brute force of the state/[the disenfranchised sh'ite mob against the false pleasance of the forbidding Saddam Hussein]) is, for our Western gaze, sustained by a cobweb of ideological implications:..."

*stares blankly at screen with jaw dropped, thinks to self "thank you Military/Industry/Energy Puppet Regime", sighs, almost replies in depth, decides instead to take out this peaceful mellow Future Sound of London and put on Mr. Bungle's California and attempts to find something about the way I am viewed as an American by non-Americans that doesn't hurt my soul*

hstencil, I'd say that at this point, even the Republicans can't decide whether or not to disown Bush;>

I know I'm bit late here, but what sense would it make to bash each other for a presidential situation we can't (currently) change? Indeed, Bush is a joke. [I'd actually left the country, telling everyone I knew how glad I was not to have to deal with his skewed version of politics!] However, this doesn't mean that I regret being a US citizen.

As for this certainty that Saddam's regime is well and truly over, It's still too early to be entirely certain of that. What war have you ever heard of that has only lasted for 2 1/2 weeks? If Hussein truly has doubles, it is unlikely that he would willingly sit in a bunker himself, waiting for a bunker-buster to be dropped on him.

Yes, we are clearly successful in seizing much of the country. However, I can picture those little pockets of resistance that still believe in Iraq Beta.

Spacial art? Only worth the $5M if you wanna please the ladies who lunch....

Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't they all SUCCESSFUL dictators? I'd say starting a second world war and causing millions of deaths in the world's largest holocaust makes you a successful dictator, but maybe that's just me. And Saddam's been there for 25 years so I'm sure that makes him successful too.

Iraq is undoubtedly better off without him but something smells a bit iffy. In a city of 5 million the turn out was pretty small and putting the Stars and Stripes on Saddam's face was too stupid to even begin describing, though I'm sure Bush enjoyed seeing it. THe post-war Iraq could very well be chaos, as America and Britain begin introducing them to the wonders of modern capitalism and that free education system is sure to go out the window. I'll give it a few years before MacDonalds start cropping up and the Iraqis say: "Is this really what we were holding out for?" and all hell breaks loose again.

But I don't want to be pessimistic. Let's hope all goes well. With the scenes tonight Bush and Blair are sure to cruise to another victory come election timem meanwhile Afghanastan is all but forgotten about and remains a wreck, Cuba is still in poverty through American sanctions, the Geneva convention counts for shit when it comes to Taliban POWs, Bush 's nutty Star Wars defence programme is up and running, more dictators are ready to killed and despite money spent on arms America still has the highest ratio of rich to poor in the whole world. And International terrorism? Pffft who cares. This was all about liberating Iraq not weapons of mass destruction at all, which from the looks of things Iraq had very little of...

And what about McCartney?

I thought after the Gulf War that Bush I had his reelection in the bag too. There's still plenty of time.

A bit shit! It's great, out in the middle of nowhere, a small field full of gigantic crazy statues. The communists had the most beautiful propaganda and the best statues. Some good music too (I bought a CD there that is actually called The Best of Communism).

a) They are serious
b) The administration may very well agree

there weren't many statues and all were on orange brick plinths, well spaced with grey gravel between. and it was empty as hell.

a bit shit.

it looks too new and cheap.

your The world is just flyover country to you and your B52s, American. & I'm thinking if the Americans loved beauty as much as they loved oil, they'd have been shelling Lisbon for the last three weeks. just make me think you're a dickhead [OK].

--

you're making ignorant generalisations about american ignorance/apathy? blaming every citizen for the way their government is? is that like [not quite as extreme but on the road to] implying that all iraqis are weak and never really cared about the way their country was being run? surely they would have done SOMETHING if they were that bothered.

can I please be free of any guilt for what my country has done [badways] because I've voted at every possible opportunity? saying that democracy means people are responsible for their government and are guilty until voted innocent [another dickhead one]. except. you're stateless? not registered to vote anywhere? you FEEL like you are something...but have no direct influence? on what you or the world is, with respect to politics, etc? you sound less like a NOMAD and more like a GONAD [these insult are necessary, OK].

and your thing that the statue of saddam=symbol of iraqi's national unity?? iraq united under a twenty-four year old dictatorship, asshole.

I have no problem with saying that the american government's biggest motivation was to ease their oil supply, etc. [they are baddies]. I have a problem with that being equated with american citizens being equated with baddies.

if I was american, you c/would say "go eat an iraqi baby, american." but I'm scottish. so. what?

OK.

Momus, you are still very much british, underneath EU on your pasport its still says 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', and 'Her Britannic Majesty requests and requires...'. You can't dodge your democratic resposibilities by claiming stelessness. Register to vote, you can do it at my address if you want, or register in Berlin or Parisor Lisbon or wherever as is your right and responsibility as an EU citizen. YOu can't just abrogate your responsibilities like that.

Really, who had any plan where peace could be won? Who had any negotiations going on with Mr. Hussein to ease his hold on the Iraq people... including those detained in his prisons? Amnesty International?

Who was discussing peace with any of the mullahs who spoke of killing Westerners every Friday after the call to prayer (way before September 11, 2001) because their vision of the world did not jive with ours? I have lived in the Middle East, loved those around me but was well aware of the hate that surrounded me as well.

We can't forget that there are men and women in the world that wish our country harm. We can't always ignore the threats from them. And the correct means in dealing with them may be a bit messy.

Oil may have been one objective (a truth buried in a not so well hidden government secret) but so was vengeance... retribution for the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the embassies, the Twin Towers, Bali and other events. Vengeance against the constant threats against our homes, our foreign assets and our dignity. Nations, even one as large and forbidding as ours can be backed into a corner. In terms of terrorism, I belive we have been put in that position. What are we to do? Should we stand back and die that death by a thousand cuts? Or should we be proactive in our defense against terrorism and destroy all monsters as well as break all of their shit?

If the US wants to prevent terrorism then it needs to smother the world in understanding. It needs to spread the properity around. People who have to live in a bombed out hovel are going to look for those responsible and the fundamentalists are only too happy to provide these people with an answer, even if it isn't the right one.

(NB I don't want to diminish the UK's reponsibility I'm just answering the point above)

OK, RJG!

The world is just flyover country to you and your B52s, American.

This is a joke between me and hstencil because he said on another thread he hated how some people treat most US states as 'flyover country'. However, it contains a serious sense of resentment, which I know I'm not alone in feeling. Let me give you a few glimpses of images which have resonated recently. The image of American B52s taking off from my 'homeland' to bomb a middle eastern country that poses no real threat to anyone. The image, in the Kissinger documentary on my TV as I was writing on this thread last night, of B52s carpet bombing Vietnam because the Americans didn't like communism. The image, as I touched down in Tempelhof airport on Tuesday, of hangars marked 'US Air Force'. Why the fuck? I'm in a non-US country, and the war was almost 60 years ago. Why are there these bases? Will Iraq still have US bases in 60 years?

if the Americans loved beauty as much as they loved oil, they'd have been shelling Lisbon for the last three weeks. just make me think you're a dickhead [OK].

I'm an aphorist. Poet, know it, etc.

blaming every citizen for the way their government is?

I do believe in the responsibility, yes. I do believe that inducing guilt and shame in Americans, at this point, is the most we outside the US can do to get rid of people I believe are essentially fascists, and must be purged. Guilt, in this case, is good. Make an American guilty today!

guilty until voted innocent [another dickhead one].

That's just me adopting the US pre-emptive philosophy. Saddam was guilty if he had WMD and guilty if he had none ('hiding them, playing games'). I believe the American people to be already guilty of intending to vote the Bush junta back in 2004, and am punishing them pre-emptively with scorn and derision (the duty of a Momus).

and your thing that the statue of saddam=symbol of iraqi's national unity?? iraq united under a twenty-four year old dictatorship, asshole.

I'm not a big fan of national unity, but dictatorship is pretty good at imposing it with statues and billboards of the 'beloved father' at every turn. What's more, even hating the father is orienting yourself to the father. Hating the father makes you forget how you hate your siblings. What we will see, now the loved / hated father is gone in Iraq, is a re-remembering of brother-hate. There will be sibling slaughter, as the sunnis re-learn to hate the Shias, the Kurds, etc.

I'm scottish. so. what?

I hold you personally responsible for Culloden and the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Register to vote, you can do it at my address if you want, or register in Berlin or Parisor Lisbon or wherever as is your right and responsibility as an EU citizen. YOu can't just abrogate your responsibilities like that.

The trouble is, in Britain, whoever you vote for, Tories get in.

I find myself a 'political migrant'. I vote with my feet. I actually leave countries or cities when they swing right, and head to countries or cities when they swing left. When I went to France, Mitterand was still in power. I left when Chirac arrived. When I went to the US, Clinton was still in power. I left when Bush arrived. I headed back to Britain in the early years of New Labour, but left when the expected socialist renaissance failed to materialise. I don't claim this behaviour to be exemplary in any way, but it's my impatient way of dealing with feelings of disgust and betrayal by politicians and electorates. And call me an elitist or whatever, but I have no interest in living amongst Creationists and people who think it's fine to invade sovereign states pre-emptively and illegally. Living amongst and being friendly to such people is like collaborating with Vichy.

I don't even like the term "terrorist" anyway since I do believe, they think they are fighting in a war (many times unofficial) and the means they employ are pretty much the only means that are available to them.

I have no love for the House of Saud. And, I agree that in the past that have supported Talib and Jihadist but that was a mistake. Just because you make a mistake and help create a monster doesn't mean you do nothing now about it.

Spreading the prosperity around is not going to make the attacks go away. Thinking so is ignoring the fundamental basis for the hate many of these organizations possess towards the west. You're projecting some Western values onto them they do not share with us. Listen to what they say. They can't be bought with thoughts of prosperity. Their reward is that was seen by Mohammed in the caves during the enlightenment. Bismillah! Kola quiess, inshallah! Talk about tunnel vision. No one is as focused as a fundamentalist. And, the western world is as far out of field to a Islamic jihadist as anything could be. Our mere presence fuels a fire in them I don't think you understand.

You mention that Israel is an apartheid centered country. That may be true. However, though Islam preaches religious tolerance... especially for people of the Book (their brothers the Jews), those who a driven by the fundamentalist fire do not put that in practice and want to homogenize the world into a Muslim monolith. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this, even if it means a walk into destiny as a suicide bomber. These are people who cannot be brought to a negotiating table. These are people who can be bouht with visions of color TVs, PDAs and a trip to the mall in an SUV. These are people who wish you were dead. These are people who will act on their wishes and send their children with bombs strapped to their waists to kill your grandmother. You do not want them over for dinner to discuss ways to stop the violence.

Just saying that we can't bring the terrorists to the table but we can bring those who are manipulated and abused by the terrorists to the table.

I apreciate that Islam is going through its wars of religion at the moment, (use the search button below to find my musings and ramblings) but that does mean we should throw up our hands and say bomb them all.

NB: Its not just Islam either.

'Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?' Terry Jones, 2003.

whoever you don't vote for, tories get in. v. good.

you are not helping to solve the world's problems, simply bemoaning them and apportioning blame. terrific-difficult-helpful-smart: none of these. you run away from the baddies instead of standing up to them. you wouldn't feel it your duty to make an american who has left america feel bad? you should feel bad, guy.

you don't want to know what I hold you personally responsible for.

It might help Momus gather a 22nd wind.

HOORAY, THE LEFT HAS LOST THE DAY!
Dear Alma Mater,
The best efforts of liberal/radical Left journalists to help mobilise public opinion
against an American led war have proved no more effective than trying to stop the
progress of a juggernaut by beating on a tin can.
I can?t tell you how pleased I am that the liberal left anti-American alliance of
politicians, academics, journalists peace activists/anarchists et al, has failed in its
frantic efforts to prevent an American led attack on Iraq. Why "pleased"? Because
it begins the final act of human history and spells the beginning of the end for the
British-American liberal/radical left, multi-culturalist establishment. They?ve not only
been checked they?ve been CHECKMATED. How was it possible? Because the
one piece of literature in the world that the Marxist-atheist Left cannot bring
themselves to read is the Bible - it?s as simple as that. They don?t know about, or
believe in, its end times prophecies or they would have realised the si gnificance of
what George Bush was doing long before now.
The most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth, a Christian one, and fielding the
mightiest army the world has ever seen, six super carriers, unlike anything any other
nation on earth possesses, or can hope to possess, oceanic "battlestars" each
displacing more than 100,000 tons and having more raw power than all the armies
of World War II combined, with their accompanying naval battle groups - a vast
array of battle cruisers, destroyers, nuclear submarines and support vessels
supporting an army of 300,000 plus troops, will soon seize control of Iraq and
position its army permanently on the banks of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers and be
both figuratively and literally "MASTER OF BABYLON". You would think
someone would have picked up on that; but that no-one has fulfils the words of
Peter: "THERE SHALL COME IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS ...SAYING
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF HIS COMING." (2 Pet. 3:1-4) And the Left
though t it was all about oil - how banal. What none of them foresaw is that with this
attack George Bush has committed every future American president, Republican
and Democrat, whether it be Hilary Clinton, or Jesse Jackson, to fighting and
destroying (radical)Islam. There is no way around this fact, no going back, no
peace, no truce, no intermission and no quarter until one or the other is destroyed.
From now on it?s a fight to the death with (radical)Islam in which every American
president will have to willingly or unwillingly engage, and one which Western
European countries in order to secure their own survival, will have to become
increasingly involved. The American-British-Israeli axis will destroy (radical)Islam in
the Middle East, and probably annihilate a lot of Arabs in the process. The stage is
set for the opening of the final act of human history, the Gog/Magog war (Ezek.
38), and Armageddon (Rev. 19); which, incidentally, is absolutely fitting for the
"been there, done that" generation. What do I hear you say? "Idiotic!", "Ridiculous!"
. Wait and see. You won?t believe how quickly things are going to escalate and
spin out of control from here on in, and in doing so seal the fate of the Islamic
world, including that of those Muslims living in the West. As Muslim violence
towards Westerners and Western interests around the world increases and
Europeans and Americans become threatened by the huge Muslim populations
living in their own countries the domestic political mood will inevitably swing to the
right and when that happens a holocaust, on a scale which will make the one
perpetrated by the Germans in the 1930s and ?40s look like a mere
dress-rehearsal, won?t be far off.
Osama bin Laden was right when he said that the great and final Jihad had been set
in motion with the attack on the twin towers. However, like the launch programme
of a nuclear missile, it needs two people using two keys to enable it; bin Laden
turned only one of those keys, now George Bush with his attack on Iraq has turned
the other and there?s no "recall" code or "cancel action" option.
For decades radical Left academics who have had a virtual monopoly of control
over higher education in Europe and the USA have been poisoning the millions of
overseas students who pass through their establishments every year with anti white,
Anglo-Saxon, European and American propaganda and we are soon to reap the
whirlwind of this socially sanctioned radicalization programme. Enoch Powell
warned of the coming violence some 40 years ago, it?s an inevitable consequence
of the cultural Marxism (the use of sexual and cultural classes - women,
homosexuals and non-Europeans - to overthrow the social order) which the Left
has thrust, with little opposition, on European cultures over the past fifty years and
is, therefore, of their own making. However it?s also a necessary precursor to the
return of Jesus Christ and the end of the world - something w hich I look forward to
even though it?s unlikely that I?m personally going to number among "the saved".
Those who think that America is frightened of finding itself in "another Vietnam" - a
spectre the Left is fond of raising every time America goes to war somewhere - had
better think again. The American politico-military establishment did learn a lesson
from Vietnam, but not the one most people imagine. They learned that they didn?t
use too much force but rather too little, and determined never to go half to war
again, but, as the first Gulf War and Afghanistan showed, to use massive and
ruthless force. A statistic from the Vietnam War which the Left is fond of quoting,
that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than during the whole of the Second
World War, omits the fact that 95% of the bombs were dropped on jungle. Had
they all been dropped on North Vietnamese cities there wouldn?t have been a
North Vietnam left worth speaking about. As for a guerrilla war developing, t he
Israelis have shown how to effectively deal with that situation - by massive and
ruthless force.
Those nations of Europe opposing America have just been taught a lesson in
REALPOLITIK, that militarily, even when taken together, they are nothing more
than pygmies when compared to the American giant - a giant which like Caesar
"bestrides this narrow world like a colossus". This is a hard lesson to learn
particularly for France and Germany - nations which thought they could have
militaries on the cheap, and who have been running on the naive assumption that
equality with the United States could be measured simply in economic terms; that
the world had advanced beyond the point where military power mattered, and that
by cobbling together a patchwork of small and medium-sized nations in Europe they
could approximate a creaky economic equality with the U.S. and therefore demand
to be listened to with respect. As events unfold in the Middle East they are just
about to learn h ow absolutely irrelevant they really are. Tony Blair, on the other
hand, realised immediately the significance of George Bush?s intended action and
the necessity of being part of a Judeo-Christian military alliance, regardless of
personal political cost.
And there you have it: because of dismissive ignorance of biblical scripture, and
thinking the debate was about humanist issues and oil, the Left lost the battle which
is going to decide the fate of the human race without ever realising what, in reality, it
was all about; they have been outwitted, outmanoeuvred, and outdone R.I.P.
Peter Wood.

A wide-shot picture of the statue-downing. Now you can see it was a pretty small group of Iraqis surrounded by many US troops - a completely staged event, but then I guess most people here knew that already.

Yes, we Europeans, are proud of our 'cultural Marxism', because, unlike the author of this rant, we are continuing a project begun in the Enlightenment, a project of expanding rationality, rights, and equality. Actually, there is a radical project of equality built into Christianity too, though we don't hear much about it these days because insane rightists in the US have more or less rewritten the Bible.

>the domestic political mood will inevitably swing to the right and when that happens >a holocaust, on a scale which will make the one perpetrated by the Germans in the >1930s and 40s look like a mere dress-rehearsal

This is certainly a worst-case scenario, if more people start thinking like Peter Wood, whoever he is.

I think Nick should register to vote but I do realise it's difficult to do so with any certainty if you're unsure where you'll be living, hence where absentee ballots must be sent, since British elections happen at just over a month's notice - the date is not fixed like Election Day. You can register with me and Ed here in Clerkenwell (at least it's a trendy address).

As to shaming and blaming Americans who did not vote for Bush, Nick has never had a go at me - I think he realises what a counter-productive action this really is (also I'd take his head off if I could decide WHICH ONE - fnarr). Most committed anti-Bushers have been agitating non-voters and Bush voters about the corruption in the regime and the necessity of removal in 2004 since long before 9/11 - and were anti during Indecision 2000.

Maybe if Nick had to deal with Americans like my mum who don't want to pay tax and bemoan every last crumb given to Welfare recipients, while getting fatter and more complacent with each Big Gulp and trip to the Wholesale Club, he'd understand the frustration of having to listen to people being racist and imperialist who even ten years ago did not have such entrenched attitudes (the stuff I hear about minorities would have earned me a Palmolive mouthwash as a child, seriously). Add to that the first worries ever that violence might happen in their own back yard - 18 months of pseudothreat to the Mall of America v. 30 years of real, US-financed (albeit privately) bombs at Big Ben, Houses of Parliament etc - and you have a people who want to hide from everything real, who want to believe that their politicians are being honest - to the point of pernicious denial. I find it arrogant for 'liberal' Americans to say that Nick's agitation re. US leader change will turn them passive-aggressive; but I find it just as silly for Nick to treat rank-and-file Americans like Bush treats Iraqui civilians (this whole shame/bully into cooperation, then attack regardless) as it perpetuates a cycle of bullying which has to end for anything sustainable and fair to be accomplished.

And also to the Pinefox's scary forward - any student of literature is encouraged to read the Bible for tropes, most of which are borrowed from Latin/Greek dramatic structure; the stories provide canonical allusions (plus all the smut you like). Any student of history knows when people don't read the Bible/Koran, it is normally because the ruling cadre have attempted to make it unavailable in translation or in some way forbidding to them. I would 'read' Armageddon tales as a shot over the bow by the writers, designed to show the road taken by those filled with hubris and way too much 'manifest destiny' - the siren song of the Elect can only end in the annihilation of us all. You make a different world if you do not follow this blueprint to its logical conclusion. You do not treat a work of fiction - which, as an atheist, I believe all so-called 'holy books' are - as fact.

this time there will be no saddam?

yeah, I don't know what the american governemt have IN STORE for iraq. I already said that I'm not ignoring what seems to be the real motivation.

I was only really taking issue with your pointless one of holding each individual american citizen accountable.

Meanwhile, Bush and Blair have appeared on new Baghdad TV station 'Towards Freedom' to talk to the people of Iraq. How reassuring! From Saddamvision straight to Bushblairvision! Towards 'freedom', indeed!

Lieberman: "History teaches us that if you leave a brutal, immoral dictator with weapons of mass destruction, eventually he will use them. And all of our liberty . . . will be compromised."

Gephardt said he supported the war to prevent a recurrence of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "We have to do what we have to do to defend the security of our people."

Edwards called the war a "just cause" but said it is crucial to show "we went there for the right reason" and called for turning Iraq back to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible.

Graham took issue with the views of Gephardt and Lieberman by saying, "War in Iraq has reduced our ability to carry out the war against terrorism."

Dean, whose candidacy has gained support for his strong opposition to the war, was grudging about the success of U.S. and British forces in Iraq. "We've gotten rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing," he said, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But he said the money spent on reconstruction in Iraq would be better spent at home.

Braun and Kucinich agreed with those priorities, with Kucinich saying rather than "blowing up bridges" over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the federal government should be building bridges in American cities. Braun said, "If we spend $80 billion to kill Saddam Hussein, that's $79 billion too much."

Kerry sided with opponents and supporters, saying, "I support the use of force, I support disarming Saddam Hussein, but I've been very critical of the way this administration went at it."

Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), former senator Carol Moseley Braun (Ill.) and Al Sharpton said the fall of Baghdad had not changed their minds. They oppose the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1106-2003Apr9.html

Can someone please track down Christopher Hitchens and punch him, repeatedly, in the face.

So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. "No War on Iraq," they said—and there wasn't a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a "war" at all. "No Blood for Oil," they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled.

Thousands of people is barely a drop spilt, is it?

I don't see the difference with colonialism, frankly. "The savages don't know what's good for them." And remember even in British colonial govts locals were given certain posts, stations, positions of rank, in some semblance of legitimacy.

If you want to talk about World War II fine, but it seems like a pretty different subject.

Christopher Hitchens and Pete Hitchens should bare knouckle box for the entertainment of the masses.

That Peter Wood thing is vile billious excremtn, but I worry about who believes it.

Stalin, no
Hitler, no
Pol Pot, no
etc.

the fact that saddam did does indeed set him apart, but not enough to legitamize the killing of thousands of millions of iraqis (91-present).

Over at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm 1100 is the low estimate - and this is based on verifiable deaths. The real deaths are probably multiples higher.

Also, if order is not restored soon, the real killers in war - riots/starvation/disease - will start taking their toll.

>That Peter Wood thing is vile billious excremtn, but I worry about who believes it.

Its basically what the PNAC people believe.

Exile shia leader assassinated in Najaf

The least worst who can win and get Bush out.

Oh, I know about that. A lot of the villagers claimed to know nothing about it, but almost no one believes that. I'm talking about laying a guilt trip on those who have nothing to do with it; say, going to people who were protestors and blaming them for the war and the supreme court and hanging chads and all that. Its ludicrious.

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2315&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258

'Years of brutality and oppression and fear are coming to an end,' added Tony.

I wonder why they didn't call the network 'Towards Voting', and what it might have signalled if they'd said, instead, 'Your nation will soon be voting'?

The fall of Saddam's regime means fuck all (let me repeat this FUCK ALL) in the long haul. America will treat Iraq the same way it treats any and all developing or poor countries/ nations with something it wants - with complete and utter disdain. The WTO (i.e. US government) will quickly haul out some 'oil for AID' programme that will see Iraq giving the free world cheap oil in exchange for McDonalds and powdered milk and any Iraqi agriculture or farming will be shot down in favour of yank imports. Look at history, this is the way of the States. And don't be surprised if Tony sits back and lets it all happen.

The light at the end of the tunnel is that since Sept 11th more and more Americans are aware of this. Bush can't hide forever.

We can only dream (KIDDING!).

I suggested St. Patrick's not because it's Catholic, but because it's prolly the most famous church in NYC, and hey this city's been struck before, of course.

"I don't see the problem, if someone said they were going to bomb here I'd, you know, get on a train and leave. Why do these stupid people hang around?"

I wanted to cry. But in another conversation this dumbass (called Hedy) said:

"All I keep hearing is about our foreign policies and stuff. What foreign policies does America have?"

So I began...

"Oh now hold on - is this going to make America look bad?"

"Well, I imagine you might be shocked"

"I... uh... you know, I don't really want to know then"

Sigh. One week my best mate came down and the Americans had this huge lunkhead Jock friend over and he was such a redneck, rattling on about bombing China and Muslims and any other country that wasn't America and we both started chatting to him. Sadly, he was about in tears after 5 minutes because he just could not accept that America actually has some bad points to it...

This worries me. It worries me enormously. I don't dislike America at all, never have and never will - I love a lot things about America and that the country has to offer, but I don't speak from a lot of experience of being there. I just wish some of the people from there were a bit more informed about the other 96% of the world that exists away from them, so that we can finally become a bit more global and start caring about those of different creeds and colours instead of shrugging it off and saying: "What does the Third World have to offer me?"

you're still a dick, though.

Endless love video

This thread has become petulant and ridiculous and I am inclined to be a dismissive prat

"It is now the time where it's time to engage proactively the current situation right now"

...or you hate America. Why o why do you hate America so?

On the other hand, there's Hanlon's Razor.

If wishful thoughts were horses....

Let commerce, er, freedom ring!

"Don't think of them as terrorist states. Think of them as terrorist markets."

Pretty blantantly ballsy of the junta to announce they want control directly to the U.N. like that who are, surprise surprise, not gonna be too happy. But hey, if our gun-toting Prez can land airplanes on the deck of an aircraft carrier, nothing's too shocking.

"The Bush administration today offered the Security Council a resolution calling for the elimination of more than a decade of international sanctions on Iraq [mm'hey! wowwy zowwy!] and granting the United States broad control over the country's oil industry and revenue [oh my God I'm SO SURPRISED!!!! < /sarcasm til it HURTZ>] until a permanent, representative Iraqi government is in place."

Wow.

"The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism. That's what drove them. If you've ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at CIA that color the way it sees data."

This article, coupled with what I've been seeing at work and what I am observing, makes me feel just a tad betrayed and deceived. I'm sure this 'Special Plans' tripe is the same gang of geniuses who found that oh-so-cunningly forged shipping invoice for uranium from Nigeria or wherever, signed by a man who hadn't worked in the relevant department in years, and reported it as fact. "put it under the microscope" my white, skinny buttocks. I'm actually pretty insulted by the idea that policy decisions were being made on the basis of this blatantly cooked-up 'Special Plans' department and not on, say, actual intelligence collected and reported by professionals who don't have an axe to grind or a bullshit economic initiative to justify.

The news regarding Halliburton's receipt of further contracts for distribution and facilities operation of the Iraq oil industry is also excrutiatingly frustrating. I'm really ready to punch a lot of people. I'm sure somebody will be extremely clever and post a 'told you so' or a 'what did you expect' and treat me as a naive bastard - but that's not it. I'm disturbed because this is all being treated as page 13 news and not blasted across the cover like it should be. Where the fuck is Bob Woodward? What the fuck are we going to let these shitheads get away with? The reason the war went so well was because the scrutiny was so intense - now we're at the important part and the media/protestors et al. seem to have given up/abandoned the entire issue. Fucking A.

I'm going to be spraypainting 'FOUR MORE FOUR MORE FOUR MORE YEARS' all over the damn downtowns if we don't crank it back up. George Will is a smug piece of shit.

Halliburton admits it paid Nigerian bribe
Fri May 9, 1:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Oil services giant Halliburton, already under fire over accusations that its White house ties helped win a major Iraqi oil contract, has admitted that a subsidiary paid a multi-million dollar bribe to a Nigerian tax official.

Halliburton, once run by Vice President Richard Cheney, revealed the illicit payments, worth 2.4 million dollars, in a filing Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) (SEC).

"The payments were made to obtain favorable tax treatment and clearly violated our code of business conduct and our internal control procedures," Halliburton said.

Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), which paid the bribe, has been in the political spotlight since it was awarded a no-bid US government oil contract in Iraq (news - web sites) in March.

KBR is building a liquefied natural gas plant and an offshore oil and gas terminal in Nigeria.

Halliburton told the SEC the bribe was discovered during an audit of KBR's Nigerian office.

The payments were made in 2001 and 2002, Halliburton spokeswoman Zelma Branch told AFP's business ethics news service, AFX Global Ethics Monitor.

Cheney led the company as chief executive from 1995 until August 2000, when he became President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s running mate.

"Based on the findings of the investigation we have terminated several employees," Halliburton said in the filing, adding that none of its senior officers was involved in the bribe.

"We are cooperating with the SEC in its review of the matter," Halliburton said.

"We plan to take further action to ensure that our foreign subsidiary pays all taxes owed in Nigeria, which may be as much as an additional five million dollars, which has been fully accrued."

Halliburton said its code of business conduct and internal control procedures were "essential" to the way it ran its business.

The group is already facing questions over its business in Iraq and its accounting practices.

On Tuesday, a US lawmaker said the military had revealed for the first time that KBR had a contract encompassing the operation of Iraqi oil fields.

Previously, the US Army Corps of Engineers had described the contract given to Halliburton as involving oil well firefighting.

But in a May 2 letter replying to questions from Henry Waxman, a Democrat, the army said the contract also included "operation of facilities and distribution of products."

Waxman, the top-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives' committee on government reform, asked for an explanation.

"These new disclosures are significant and they seem at odds with the administration's repeated assurances that the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people," Waxman said.

The Army Corps of Engineers had said it decided to forgo competitive bidding on the first contract because of time constraints.

But in a May 2 letter responding to questions from Waxman, military programs chief Lieutenant General Robert Flowers said the military assigned the work to KBR's services division in November 2002, under a pre-existing contract for the firm to provide logistical support to the US Army worldwide.

Waxman has also criticized Halliburton for dealings with countries such as Iran, Iraq and Libya, cited by Washington as state sponsors of terrorism or members of the so-called "axis of evil".

The idea on Talking Points Memo that these are also the guys that leaked information to Ahmed Chalabi amuses me in my cold black heart.