Archiv der Kategorie: Iraq

Iraq, oddly enough, USA

The Most Disgusting Porn Spam Ever

I just received the most disgusting spam mail I ever saw. It read

“Iraqi Whores. People attacked in their homes and savagely raped at gunpoint. Footage smuggled out of Iraq by the troops who did it. Sexually deviant soldiers run wild. CNN would not play that footage.”

In all likelihood, this never happened. CNN would not play the tape, but they would certainly grill anyone who tried to cover that up. Certainly this is an advantage of embedding journalists with military units. If there had been embedded journalists in Eastern Europe in 1945, the Red Army’s soldiers would in all likelihood not have gang-raped two million women.

So if people invest money to shoot a film in which actors disguised as soldiers rape actresses disguised as Iraqi civilians there must be a) demand for this kind of material and they must b) have decided that the dollars they will earn are sufficient to bribe their conscience.

I am all for capitalism. And I have no ideological problems with pornography. But this is just disgusting.

Standard
Iraq, oddly enough

And The Winner Could Be…

George W. Bush and Tony Blair – that is, if the Nobel Peace Price committee actually follows the advice of

“Jan Simonsen, formerly from the Progress Party, (now an independent MP), [who] have proposed George W. Bush and Tony Blair as candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, following the successful war on Iraq”

as Bjorn Staerk tells us today. While he realizes that giving the two politicians the price would infringe its fundamental idea, he argues that this has become a practice in recent years anyway – just why did Jimmy Carter in 2002? And he continues –

“[s]o, why not use it to send a different signal alltogether? Why not use it to send the signal that the efforts Bush and Blair have made – against the high-pitched protests of the ‘world’ – were appreciated by at least some of us? Why not balance the usual message that talk solves everything with the often proved idea that force is a good second resort?”

Well, I would say that being appreciated by some implies that their policy has been rejected by many, which is usually not the way to win a world-wide competition. But Bjorn’s second argument is quite interesting, in my opinion. In general as well as, I think, in the case at hand.

Making peace sometimes does require violence. Even the staunchest opponents of last months war in Iraq accepted that – so yes, why not award a Nobel Peace Prce to someone who employed violence for the greater good of mankind? I have no objections to this in general. In fact, could such a case be made one day, I would happily support it. Why not give it to the international troops that forcefully ensure peace around Kabul, help the Afghan government trying to negotiate with the warlords out in the country and thus aid in ending a decade old civil war?

But as far as Iraq is concerned I am not at all with Bjorn. Certainly not for the time being. Should the project of a “Middle Eastern Pax Americana” turn out to foster modernizsation instead of ethnic conflict and religious fundamentalism in the region – and, yes, to a certain extent this also applies to the fundamentalist factions of the Israeli society – I would be willing to give the credit to those who pursued it, even though they had to trick their own people by exaggerating the risk posed by a specific regime, and even though they had been closely affiliated to private enterprises that benefit significantly from the military action they pursued.

But let’s face it: It is far too early to tell. Maybe in 15 years we will be able to tell if this war was not just one useful in geo-strategic terms, but also one worthy of a Nobel Peace Price.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

I’m not sure Henry Kissenger

I’m not sure Henry Kissenger is right here. According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, he criticised the German foreign policy for allegedly not understanding “the American psyche” and not trusting “the American motives”.

So good ol’ Henry tells Gerhard and Joschka to flagellate themselves for not being able to see the truth. Just wondering – if the US have a specific agenda and would like the rest of the world to support it, wouldn’t it be their obligation to convince said rest? In my book, it would.

Standard
Iraq, oddly enough, quicklink, US Politics

Saddam Hussein, MBA.

This is good. Condoleeza Rice has presented a new rationale for the current lack of Iraqi WMDs – while admitting that

“Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program is less clear-cut, and probably more difficult to establish, than the White House portrayed before the war”,

she readily explained why that should have been expected anyway – Saddam knew about “Just-In- Time” manufacturing – “Just-in-time assembly” and “just-in-time inventory”. Now really. But speaking of management buzzwords, I guess one could make a real case for Saddam excelling in “global sourcing”… (from the Autralian f2-netowork via Tom Tomorrow).

Standard
intellectual property rights, Iraq, music industry, oddly enough, quicklink

They take no chances.

If this report by Telepolis is right, then Hillary Rose, the former chief RIAA lobbyist, is currently rewriting the copyright laws of Iraq. Just in case the Iraqi ideas about intellectual property rights should differ from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Actually, the journalist Gregory Palast is not unjustifiedly wondering whether the combination of sharia and the DMCA would result in hands being chopped off for filesharing. Hmm, I guess I am favoring a kinder, gentler version – just chop off the index-finger. After all, isn’t it always that bad guy that clicks on ‘download’?

Standard
compulsory reading, German Politics, Iraq, media, US Politics

Does it matter…

that I forgot to mention Paul Krugman’s latest column so far? It probably doesn’t. The very fact that I am reading his columns confirms that Paul does get sufficient public exposure even without my mentioning him [I wonder – does this sound pretentious or merely ironic to your ears ;-)].

But as Paul Krugman wonders whether it matters that the US population has been misled into war given that it allowed the most powerful military in the world to quite successfully flex its muscles and liberate-slash-conquer Iraq in a blitz, I think I would be guilty of omission should I not mention the column at all.

Now I don’t think that one should expect politicians to be entirely truthful about their motives, all the time. And I think I am cynical enough to say that Krugman is probably not actually expecting that

“… a democracy’s decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens.”

He certainly knows enough about transaction costs and the reasons for having division of labour in politics, ie representative democracy. But the gist of his argument remains right: It is wrong, if not outright amoral, for the political class of a country to willingly engage in creating wrong perceptions in a major policy area – in Paul Krugman’s words –

“[t]hanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat – just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.”

We all know that truth can be a fickle firend sometimes. So it is probably correct to argue, that, in a purely logical sense, the US administration was not ‘lying’ to anyone, just as it claims –

“We were not lying,” a Bush administration official told ABC News. “But it was just a matter of emphasis.” … According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration “wanted to make a statement.” And why Iraq? “Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.”

By the way, the same argument can be made for those German union leaders and those within the social democrats who still claim that the German labour market does not need reform. But then again, I am not too sure about their motives being vile. Maybe their own perception has been clouded and they actually don’t know better… in which case we would be back to the old question: what’s better? A political class working against the people’s interest for reasons of a private agenda or for reasons of incompetence, pure and simple.

That’s certainly a tough call. Especially on a sunny socialist holiday ;-). [ author off to a beer garden. ]

Standard
Iraq, quicklink

Norman Mailer vs. US Feminists

Norman Mailer writes in the London Times that, in his opinion, the US went to war because of tv – but above all, because of women – American feminists, to be precise.

“We understood that our television was going to be terrific. And it was. Sanitised but terrific … There were, however, even better reasons for using our military skills, but these reasons return us to the ongoing malaise of the white American male. He had been taking a daily drubbing over the past 30 years. For better or worse, the women?s movement had had its breakthrough successes and the old, easy white male ego had withered in the glare.”

Standard
Iraq, US Politics

Pride Goeth Before The Fall

Lillimarleen points to a Salon.com article by Arianna Huffington that begins with this quote from the Bible and deals with the increasing smugness of the Beltway neocons –

“From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.”

Ms Huffington, on the other hand, argues along the lines of the French political scientist Emanuel Todd – whose main argument regarding Iraq is that an increasingly weaker superpower (yes, he is thinking about ths US) chose to rethorically prop up a weak target to demonstrate its seeming military might – by saying that –

“[i]n fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the antiwar movement was dead right.”

Well, I am not too sure about this conclusion – in fact there is no way to tell who was right and who was wrong. There’s enough reality for everyone to say “I told you so.”

So having heard why the anti- as well as the pro-war camp believe their world-wiew is right in light of the quick end to hostilities, let’s do a little thought-experiment: Imagine the war had lasted six months and there would have been thousands, if not tens of thousands more victims on either side, possibly killed by WMDs. Those in the anti-war camp would have said “see, we told you so”, war is horrible and there was no immediate need to let the genie out of the bottle, while the pro-war camp would have claimed “see, we told you so”, Saddam’s regime is in fact dangerous and it was the right decision to go in now. The sad truth for everyone looking for ex-post moral clarity is that right or wrong are just the wrong categories here.

But apart from failing to see this impossibility, Ms Huffington’s article makes the important point that, following the surprisingly quick and relatively unbloody fall of Baghdad, the neoconsevervatives’ “it was easy, we can do it again”-discourse should not remain unchallenged.

Right or wrong, the neoconservative conception of preemption was never just about possible Iraqi-WMDs or about liberation of the Iraqi people. The whole adventure is probably really inspired by the desire to jump-start modern institutions of governance in the Middle East. This can probably be called neo-colonialist. But maybe there is just no other way to increase financial support to unprecedented levels without taking hierarchical control of the regions where the money is spent. Maybe this is the right way to reduce the risk of suicide terrorists exporting their societies’ 30-years-jihad to New York, Paris, or Frankfurt. Maybe there is no other way to solve-slash-control the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in light of the Arab nations’ tendency to scapegoat Israel for internal problems, continuing mutual violence destroying any remainder of trust between leaders as well as their peoples, and, of course, the fertility competition Jewish settlers and Palestinians are engaging in. Maybe. But probably not. Probably, there is no short cut to modernity.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t believe their calculation is correct. But it is clearly one possibility. And the relatively swift conquest-slash-liberation has clearly made things significantly easier. Thus, Ms Huffington is clearly right to remind us that – even though things went a lot smoother than, I suppose, even most of the people who bet their careers on this war expected – the difficult times are still ahead. In her words –

“The unintended consequences have barely begun to unfold.”

Didn’t the Shiite opposition boycot yesterday’s meeting with the future Iraqi “viceroy”, Jay Garner? I’m just saying… Remember – pride goeth before the fall.

Standard