(Boogers aside) I can feel the cold winds now. Iraq going poorly. Oil prices up. Inflation up. AQ sawing off somebody's head (what the hell were they thinking?). Sooner or later the poor sap with the SUV is going to stand there with the nozzle in his hand and realize it is about oil. I ask again, how is SoCal going to work when gas prices get higher? It won't, and that will help solidify and accelerate economic problems.

So this crisis is going to be about resources, terrorism via culture clash, and economics. All rolled into one.

Strange days are indeed afoot.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

I ask again, how is SoCal going to work when gas prices get higher?

I guess we'll find out when that actually happens:



(Source)

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Strange days are indeed afoot.

Or not.

Actually, the days are strange, but what makes them strange is the disconnect between what we see on our TV's and the truth.

But the truth is easy to find. Another source.

Gas is still cheap. In constant dollars, we paid about $3 a gallon for gas in March 1981.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Iraq going poorly.

Don't even get me started about the wrongness of that.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

I ask again, how is SoCal going to work when gas prices get higher?

I guess we'll find out when that actually happens:



(Source)

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Strange days are indeed afoot.

Or not.

Actually, the days are strange, but what makes them strange is the disconnect between what we see on our TV's and the truth.

But the truth is easy to find. Another source.

Gas is still cheap. In constant dollars, we paid about $3 a gallon for gas in March 1981.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Iraq going poorly.

Don't even get me started about the wrongness of that.

Today's NY Times (yes I know - liberal rag and all):

[S]o far, the current world oil crunch doesn't look at all like the crises of 1973 or 1979. That's why it's so scary.

The oil crises of the 1970's began with big supply disruptions: the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war and the 1979 Iranian revolution. This time, despite the chaos in Iraq, nothing comparable has happened ? yet. Nonetheless, because of rising demand that is led by soaring Chinese consumption, the world oil market is already stretched tight as a drum, and crude oil prices are $12 a barrel higher than they were a year ago. What if something really does go wrong?

Let me put it a bit differently: the last time oil prices were this high, on the eve of the 1991 gulf war, there was a lot of spare capacity in the world, so there was room to cope with a major supply disruption if it happened. This time there isn't.

The International Energy Agency estimates the world's spare oil production capacity at about 2.5 million barrels per day, almost all of it in the Persian Gulf region. It also predicts that global oil demand in 2004 will be, on average, 2 million barrels per day higher than in 2003. Now imagine what will happen if there are more successful insurgent attacks on Iraqi pipelines, or, perish the thought, instability in Saudi Arabia. In fact, even without a supply disruption, it's hard to see where the oil will come from to meet the growing demand.

But wait: basic economics says that markets deal handily with excesses of demand over supply. Prices rise, producers have an incentive to produce more while consumers have an incentive to consume less, and the market comes back into balance. Won't that happen with oil?

Yes, it will. The question is how long it will take, and how high prices will go in the meantime.

To see the problem, think about gasoline. Sustained high gasoline prices lead to more fuel-efficient cars: by 1990 the average American vehicle got 40 percent more miles per gallon than in 1973. But replacing old cars with new takes years. In their initial response to a shortfall in the gasoline supply, people must save gas by driving less, something they do only in the face of very, very high prices. So very, very high prices are what we'll get.

Increasing production capacity takes even longer than replacing old cars. Also, major new discoveries of oil have become increasingly rare (although in my last column on the subject, I forgot about two large fields in Kazakhstan, one discovered in 1979, the second in 2000).

Petroleum engineers continue to squeeze more oil out of known fields, but a repeat of the post-1973 experience, in which there was a big increase in non-OPEC production, seems unlikely.

So oil prices will stay high, and may go higher even in the absence of more bad news from the Middle East. And with more bad news, we'll be looking at a real crisis ? one that could do a lot of economic damage. Each $10 per barrel increase in crude prices is like a $70 billion tax increase on American consumers, levied through inflation. The spurt in producer prices last month was a taste of what will happen if prices stay high. By the way, after the 1979 Iranian revolution world prices went to about $60 per barrel in today's prices.

Could an oil shock actually lead to 1970's-style stagflation ? a combination of inflation and rising unemployment? Well, there are several comfort factors, reasons we're less vulnerable now than a generation ago. Despite the rise of the S.U.V., the U.S. consumes only about half as much oil per dollar of real G.D.P. as it did in 1973. Also, in the 1970's the economy was already primed for inflation: given the prevalence of cost-of-living adjustments in labor contracts and the experience of past inflation, oil price increases rapidly fed into a wage-price spiral. That's less likely to happen today.

Still, if there is a major supply disruption, the world will have to get by with less oil, and the only way that can happen in the short run is if there is a world economic slowdown. An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched.

It is, all in all, an awkward time to be pursuing a foreign policy that promises a radical transformation of the Middle East ? let alone to be botching the job so completely.

Maybe it's just the headlines:

"Bush approval hits new lows in poll
Support for war in Iraq also lowest ever" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ar.bush.kerry/

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm" http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10160397.html

I was under the impression that a) oil spikes commonly cause economic disruptions, and b) ppl's impression is quite often more important than whatever the truth may be [note: for a Social Constructionist ppl's impressions are the truth]

This means that all ppl need to do is put these (perhaps true) variables together in their heads, when the population is nearing a social psych mood of concern and voila we have the beginnings of a crisis.

(man I suck at ubb)

Today's NY Times (yes I know - liberal rag and all):

[S]o far, the current world oil crunch doesn't look at all like the crises of 1973 or 1979. That's why it's so scary.

The oil crises of the 1970's began with big supply disruptions: the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war and the 1979 Iranian revolution. This time, despite the chaos in Iraq, nothing comparable has happened ? yet. Nonetheless, because of rising demand that is led by soaring Chinese consumption, the world oil market is already stretched tight as a drum, and crude oil prices are $12 a barrel higher than they were a year ago. What if something really does go wrong?

Let me put it a bit differently: the last time oil prices were this high, on the eve of the 1991 gulf war, there was a lot of spare capacity in the world, so there was room to cope with a major supply disruption if it happened. This time there isn't.

The International Energy Agency estimates the world's spare oil production capacity at about 2.5 million barrels per day, almost all of it in the Persian Gulf region. It also predicts that global oil demand in 2004 will be, on average, 2 million barrels per day higher than in 2003. Now imagine what will happen if there are more successful insurgent attacks on Iraqi pipelines, or, perish the thought, instability in Saudi Arabia. In fact, even without a supply disruption, it's hard to see where the oil will come from to meet the growing demand.

But wait: basic economics says that markets deal handily with excesses of demand over supply. Prices rise, producers have an incentive to produce more while consumers have an incentive to consume less, and the market comes back into balance. Won't that happen with oil?

Yes, it will. The question is how long it will take, and how high prices will go in the meantime.

To see the problem, think about gasoline. Sustained high gasoline prices lead to more fuel-efficient cars: by 1990 the average American vehicle got 40 percent more miles per gallon than in 1973. But replacing old cars with new takes years. In their initial response to a shortfall in the gasoline supply, people must save gas by driving less, something they do only in the face of very, very high prices. So very, very high prices are what we'll get.

Increasing production capacity takes even longer than replacing old cars. Also, major new discoveries of oil have become increasingly rare (although in my last column on the subject, I forgot about two large fields in Kazakhstan, one discovered in 1979, the second in 2000).

Petroleum engineers continue to squeeze more oil out of known fields, but a repeat of the post-1973 experience, in which there was a big increase in non-OPEC production, seems unlikely.

So oil prices will stay high, and may go higher even in the absence of more bad news from the Middle East. And with more bad news, we'll be looking at a real crisis ? one that could do a lot of economic damage. Each $10 per barrel increase in crude prices is like a $70 billion tax increase on American consumers, levied through inflation. The spurt in producer prices last month was a taste of what will happen if prices stay high. By the way, after the 1979 Iranian revolution world prices went to about $60 per barrel in today's prices.

Could an oil shock actually lead to 1970's-style stagflation ? a combination of inflation and rising unemployment? Well, there are several comfort factors, reasons we're less vulnerable now than a generation ago. Despite the rise of the S.U.V., the U.S. consumes only about half as much oil per dollar of real G.D.P. as it did in 1973. Also, in the 1970's the economy was already primed for inflation: given the prevalence of cost-of-living adjustments in labor contracts and the experience of past inflation, oil price increases rapidly fed into a wage-price spiral. That's less likely to happen today.

Still, if there is a major supply disruption, the world will have to get by with less oil, and the only way that can happen in the short run is if there is a world economic slowdown. An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched.

It is, all in all, an awkward time to be pursuing a foreign policy that promises a radical transformation of the Middle East ? let alone to be botching the job so completely.

Maybe it's just the headlines:

"Bush approval hits new lows in poll
Support for war in Iraq also lowest ever" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ar.bush.kerry/

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm" http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10160397.html

I was under the impression that a) oil spikes commonly cause economic disruptions, and b) ppl's impression is quite often more important than whatever the truth may be [note: for a Social Constructionist ppl's impressions are the truth]

This means that all ppl need to do is put these (perhaps true) variables together in their heads, when the population is nearing a social psych mood of concern and voila we have the beginnings of a crisis.

(man I suck at ubb)

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Maybe it's just the headlines:

That's fair. The headlines lack historical perspective.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

"Bush approval hits new lows in poll
Support for war in Iraq also lowest ever" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ar.bush.kerry/

"Support for war in Iraq lowest ever, but still high for a democracy, especially considering the crisis-mongers running the media"

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm" http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10160397.html

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm: After a long period of historically low levels, price inflation nudges upward"

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

b) ppl's impression is quite often more important than whatever the truth may be

Quite true. Darn ppl!

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

(man I suck at ubb)

Err, um, be safe?

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Maybe it's just the headlines:

That's fair. The headlines lack historical perspective.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

"Bush approval hits new lows in poll
Support for war in Iraq also lowest ever" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ar.bush.kerry/

"Support for war in Iraq lowest ever, but still high for a democracy, especially considering the crisis-mongers running the media"

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm" http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10160397.html

"CPI Rings Inflation Alarm: After a long period of historically low levels, price inflation nudges upward"

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

b) ppl's impression is quite often more important than whatever the truth may be

Quite true. Darn ppl!

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

(man I suck at ubb)

Err, um, be safe?

Originally Posted by msm

That's fair. The headlines lack historical perspective.

Isn't that the engine of this whole theory?

Err, um, be safe?

Thanks! Appreciate the concern.

Originally Posted by msm

That's fair. The headlines lack historical perspective.

Isn't that the engine of this whole theory?

Err, um, be safe?

Thanks! Appreciate the concern.

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The champions of the Iraq War are in transition phase, already assuming that history will hold them accountable for an ongoing fiasco and thereby trying to put the best spin on it. The way to think about their efforts is by analogy to the early supporters of the Bolsheviks, during the period of war communism.

The revolution had gone badly, as evidenced by starvation, misery, death, and no obvious way out apart from backing away from core doctrine. This is what Lenin ultimately did, but in the meantime, the backers of the Bolsheviks had to provide an explanation for why history's great leap forward was straight into the abyss. The trick is to do it without giving up the core ideological conviction. So too with the warmongers who must concede the failure without surrendering their attachment to the warfare state.

The supporters of the Iraq War were no less fanatical than the Bolsheviks in their conviction that power could accomplish miracles at the push of a button. People like David Brooks are now saying that the embrace of power was a mistake. "We were blinded by idealism," he explains in a manner reminiscent of every apologist for a fanatical despot in the history of the world. Idealism! When your "idealism" results in military dictatorship, mass jailings and killings, rivers of blood, and the seething anger of half the world, you need to do more than confess that you might have underestimated the "response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate."

Let us state the lesson in ways that might penetrate the brains of these scribblers. When a person's "idealism" is contingent on issuing a dictate that people must obey or be killed, and on the assumption that human beings will do what they are told to do so long as the knife is at their throat, and on the further assumption that the people paying with their money and lives will believe every lie you tell, it is time to rethink your ideals. Otherwise they will end in mass suffering and devastation.

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War is idealism in the same way that Communism and Nazism were idealism: the fanatical dream of people who insisted that the world conform to their vicious imaginings, and just so happened to get hold of the power of the state and used it to make their "ideals" happen. They are the people who give us killing fields. War too is a god that has failed.

War, the God That Failed

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The champions of the Iraq War are in transition phase, already assuming that history will hold them accountable for an ongoing fiasco and thereby trying to put the best spin on it. The way to think about their efforts is by analogy to the early supporters of the Bolsheviks, during the period of war communism.

The revolution had gone badly, as evidenced by starvation, misery, death, and no obvious way out apart from backing away from core doctrine. This is what Lenin ultimately did, but in the meantime, the backers of the Bolsheviks had to provide an explanation for why history's great leap forward was straight into the abyss. The trick is to do it without giving up the core ideological conviction. So too with the warmongers who must concede the failure without surrendering their attachment to the warfare state.

The supporters of the Iraq War were no less fanatical than the Bolsheviks in their conviction that power could accomplish miracles at the push of a button. People like David Brooks are now saying that the embrace of power was a mistake. "We were blinded by idealism," he explains in a manner reminiscent of every apologist for a fanatical despot in the history of the world. Idealism! When your "idealism" results in military dictatorship, mass jailings and killings, rivers of blood, and the seething anger of half the world, you need to do more than confess that you might have underestimated the "response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate."

Let us state the lesson in ways that might penetrate the brains of these scribblers. When a person's "idealism" is contingent on issuing a dictate that people must obey or be killed, and on the assumption that human beings will do what they are told to do so long as the knife is at their throat, and on the further assumption that the people paying with their money and lives will believe every lie you tell, it is time to rethink your ideals. Otherwise they will end in mass suffering and devastation.

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War is idealism in the same way that Communism and Nazism were idealism: the fanatical dream of people who insisted that the world conform to their vicious imaginings, and just so happened to get hold of the power of the state and used it to make their "ideals" happen. They are the people who give us killing fields. War too is a god that has failed.

War, the God That Failed

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The champions of the Iraq War are in transition phase, already assuming that history will hold them accountable for an ongoing fiasco and thereby trying to put the best spin on it. The way to think about their efforts is by analogy to the early supporters of the Bolsheviks, during the period of war communism.

The revolution had gone badly, as evidenced by starvation, misery, death, and no obvious way out apart from backing away from core doctrine. This is what Lenin ultimately did, but in the meantime, the backers of the Bolsheviks had to provide an explanation for why history's great leap forward was straight into the abyss. The trick is to do it without giving up the core ideological conviction. So too with the warmongers who must concede the failure without surrendering their attachment to the warfare state.

The supporters of the Iraq War were no less fanatical than the Bolsheviks in their conviction that power could accomplish miracles at the push of a button. People like David Brooks are now saying that the embrace of power was a mistake. "We were blinded by idealism," he explains in a manner reminiscent of every apologist for a fanatical despot in the history of the world. Idealism! When your "idealism" results in military dictatorship, mass jailings and killings, rivers of blood, and the seething anger of half the world, you need to do more than confess that you might have underestimated the "response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate."

Let us state the lesson in ways that might penetrate the brains of these scribblers. When a person's "idealism" is contingent on issuing a dictate that people must obey or be killed, and on the assumption that human beings will do what they are told to do so long as the knife is at their throat, and on the further assumption that the people paying with their money and lives will believe every lie you tell, it is time to rethink your ideals. Otherwise they will end in mass suffering and devastation.

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War is idealism in the same way that Communism and Nazism were idealism: the fanatical dream of people who insisted that the world conform to their vicious imaginings, and just so happened to get hold of the power of the state and used it to make their "ideals" happen. They are the people who give us killing fields. War too is a god that has failed.

War, the God That Failed

Mr. Saari, why are you preaching this "anti-Murkan hate"? :lol: :lol: :lol: You are just a radical leftist who wants to see Murka's "enemies" bring her to her knees! There is no reason NOT to believe that the truly massive al-Qaeda Navy has already transited the St. Lawrence Seaway, Welland Canal, and Soo Locks undetected. Al-Qaeda landing craft could be depositing an invasion force of al-Qaeda marines on your Superior shores (a la D-Day the Sixth of June!) as we speak! Air cover could be provided by the al-Qaeda Air Force operating from bases of their Canadian "allies"! If you were a real Murkan you would be manning your post as a sentinel on Lake Superior right now. But instead you pray for your country's defeat in the midst of this leviathan al-Qaeda military juggernaut! Oh the humanity! There is just no hope for Murka! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The champions of the Iraq War are in transition phase, already assuming that history will hold them accountable for an ongoing fiasco and thereby trying to put the best spin on it. The way to think about their efforts is by analogy to the early supporters of the Bolsheviks, during the period of war communism.

The revolution had gone badly, as evidenced by starvation, misery, death, and no obvious way out apart from backing away from core doctrine. This is what Lenin ultimately did, but in the meantime, the backers of the Bolsheviks had to provide an explanation for why history's great leap forward was straight into the abyss. The trick is to do it without giving up the core ideological conviction. So too with the warmongers who must concede the failure without surrendering their attachment to the warfare state.

The supporters of the Iraq War were no less fanatical than the Bolsheviks in their conviction that power could accomplish miracles at the push of a button. People like David Brooks are now saying that the embrace of power was a mistake. "We were blinded by idealism," he explains in a manner reminiscent of every apologist for a fanatical despot in the history of the world. Idealism! When your "idealism" results in military dictatorship, mass jailings and killings, rivers of blood, and the seething anger of half the world, you need to do more than confess that you might have underestimated the "response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate."

Let us state the lesson in ways that might penetrate the brains of these scribblers. When a person's "idealism" is contingent on issuing a dictate that people must obey or be killed, and on the assumption that human beings will do what they are told to do so long as the knife is at their throat, and on the further assumption that the people paying with their money and lives will believe every lie you tell, it is time to rethink your ideals. Otherwise they will end in mass suffering and devastation.

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War is idealism in the same way that Communism and Nazism were idealism: the fanatical dream of people who insisted that the world conform to their vicious imaginings, and just so happened to get hold of the power of the state and used it to make their "ideals" happen. They are the people who give us killing fields. War too is a god that has failed.

War, the God That Failed

Mr. Saari, why are you preaching this "anti-Murkan hate"? :lol: :lol: :lol: You are just a radical leftist who wants to see Murka's "enemies" bring her to her knees! There is no reason NOT to believe that the truly massive al-Qaeda Navy has already transited the St. Lawrence Seaway, Welland Canal, and Soo Locks undetected. Al-Qaeda landing craft could be depositing an invasion force of al-Qaeda marines on your Superior shores (a la D-Day the Sixth of June!) as we speak! Air cover could be provided by the al-Qaeda Air Force operating from bases of their Canadian "allies"! If you were a real Murkan you would be manning your post as a sentinel on Lake Superior right now. But instead you pray for your country's defeat in the midst of this leviathan al-Qaeda military juggernaut! Oh the humanity! There is just no hope for Murka! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War, the God That Failed

Nice find, Virgil. I never saw Bush & Company as idealists. They do brute force power, not ideas. They were into bashing a dictator, not respecting human rights. They see things in black and white, underestimating how cultural and economic differences can make a typical man in the Iraqi street distrust policies which Bush and company would have thought acceptable.

While the recent scandal has turned a lot of people against Bush and his war policies, I think we are picking up the correct lessons learned. We need friends. We need to respect human rights to get friends. Winning the peace is harder than winning the war. Containment might work against dictators, though not against terrorists. Destroying a nation is harder than building one.

I think Bush has figured the above out. The longer he stays in power, the more Clintonesque his foreign policy grows. He is capable of learning from his fiascoes... I think. Still, he made too many fiascoes. I'd rather see Kerry try on the job training that risk continued preemptive unilateral torture.

I suspect the Iraqi government will invite us to go home relatively quickly, and we'll be glad to leave. I wish them well. I hope they decline to offer us bases, so we won't be tempted to repeat our little preemptive unilateral experiment.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell

The core problem in Iraq right now is not some rogue corporals engaged in sadomasochistic torture; the problem is the "idealists" who think nothing of attempting to reconstruct an entire region of the world using bombs and bloodshed.

War, the God That Failed

Nice find, Virgil. I never saw Bush & Company as idealists. They do brute force power, not ideas. They were into bashing a dictator, not respecting human rights. They see things in black and white, underestimating how cultural and economic differences can make a typical man in the Iraqi street distrust policies which Bush and company would have thought acceptable.

While the recent scandal has turned a lot of people against Bush and his war policies, I think we are picking up the correct lessons learned. We need friends. We need to respect human rights to get friends. Winning the peace is harder than winning the war. Containment might work against dictators, though not against terrorists. Destroying a nation is harder than building one.

I think Bush has figured the above out. The longer he stays in power, the more Clintonesque his foreign policy grows. He is capable of learning from his fiascoes... I think. Still, he made too many fiascoes. I'd rather see Kerry try on the job training that risk continued preemptive unilateral torture.

I suspect the Iraqi government will invite us to go home relatively quickly, and we'll be glad to leave. I wish them well. I hope they decline to offer us bases, so we won't be tempted to repeat our little preemptive unilateral experiment.

Well, the downward cascade continues. More bad news, from the Washington Post, standard disclaimers apply.

Iraqi Governing Council President Killed in Attack
10 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded in Suicide Bomb Attack
By Scott Wilson and Sewell Chan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 17, 2004; 9:10 AM


BAGHDAD, May 17 -- The president of the Iraqi Governing Council was killed early Monday in a huge explosion set off by a suicide bomber outside the headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation authority here.

At least 10 Iraqis were killed and six were wounded, and two U.S. soldiers were slightly injured, in a devastating attack on Iraq's political leaders six weeks before the scheduled handover of limited political power to a new Iraqi government.

The explosion killed Izzedine Salim, who had held the rotating presidency of the Governing Council since May 1 and was a leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, one of the most influential Shiite Muslim political factions in Iraq.

A veteran political activist, Salim had edited numerous newspapers and magazines and had his base in the southern city of Basra, the second largest city in Iraq. In a statement, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, called the killing a "shocking and tragic loss."

"The terrorists who are seeking to destroy Iraq have struck a cruel blow with this vile act today," he said. "But they will be defeated...The Iraqi people will ensure that his vision of a democratic, free and prosperous Iraq will become a reality."

Full link is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May17.html

Well, the downward cascade continues. More bad news, from the Washington Post, standard disclaimers apply.

Iraqi Governing Council President Killed in Attack
10 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded in Suicide Bomb Attack
By Scott Wilson and Sewell Chan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 17, 2004; 9:10 AM


BAGHDAD, May 17 -- The president of the Iraqi Governing Council was killed early Monday in a huge explosion set off by a suicide bomber outside the headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation authority here.

At least 10 Iraqis were killed and six were wounded, and two U.S. soldiers were slightly injured, in a devastating attack on Iraq's political leaders six weeks before the scheduled handover of limited political power to a new Iraqi government.

The explosion killed Izzedine Salim, who had held the rotating presidency of the Governing Council since May 1 and was a leader of the Islamic Dawa Party, one of the most influential Shiite Muslim political factions in Iraq.

A veteran political activist, Salim had edited numerous newspapers and magazines and had his base in the southern city of Basra, the second largest city in Iraq. In a statement, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, called the killing a "shocking and tragic loss."

"The terrorists who are seeking to destroy Iraq have struck a cruel blow with this vile act today," he said. "But they will be defeated...The Iraqi people will ensure that his vision of a democratic, free and prosperous Iraq will become a reality."

Full link is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May17.html

No no, Bush is vindicated. They found a WMD. Well, a shell's worth at least.

Whew, I sure am glad we disabled that threat.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5166415

No no, Bush is vindicated. They found a WMD. Well, a shell's worth at least.

Whew, I sure am glad we disabled that threat.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5166415

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Well, the downward cascade continues. More bad news, from the Washington Post, standard disclaimers apply.

Iraqi Governing Council President Killed in Attack
10 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded in Suicide Bomb Attack

Cascade? I'm not sure I get it. This is standard stuff in Israel, have you ever posted a "downward cascade continues. More bad news" about that? Or do you just continue to go to the polls, "hold [your] nose and vote" for a man who supports the Palestinians? Or do you get a reprieve this year, as perhaps your pro-Arafat Congressman, Jim Moran (D-VA)), isn't running anymore?

Either way, I find your post, as usual, nothing more than partisan crap. Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Well, the downward cascade continues. More bad news, from the Washington Post, standard disclaimers apply.

Iraqi Governing Council President Killed in Attack
10 Iraqis Killed, 6 Wounded in Suicide Bomb Attack

Cascade? I'm not sure I get it. This is standard stuff in Israel, have you ever posted a "downward cascade continues. More bad news" about that? Or do you just continue to go to the polls, "hold [your] nose and vote" for a man who supports the Palestinians? Or do you get a reprieve this year, as perhaps your pro-Arafat Congressman, Jim Moran (D-VA)), isn't running anymore?

Either way, I find your post, as usual, nothing more than partisan crap. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

While the recent scandal has turned a lot of people against Bush and his war policies, I think we are picking up the correct lessons learned. We need friends. We need to respect human rights to get friends.

Americ currently has a better record for respecting human rights than most of the world, certainly better than most of Europe and the UN. Not that it makes any difference. We'll have 'friends' to the degree that other peoples and governments perceive it to be in their self-interest, not in accordance with out behavior.

I suspect the Iraqi government will invite us to go home relatively quickly, and we'll be glad to leave. I wish them well. I hope they decline to offer us bases, so we won't be tempted to repeat our little preemptive unilateral experiment.

We're going to have no other choice but to act unilaterally again. and everybody might as well get braced for that. The world simply is against us, and is going to remain so for the near-term future without regard to out own choices. There's nothing we can do about that.

International affairs are about self-interest, not community values or the rule of law. You can't have the later two until you have an actual, functioning community, and nothing of the sort exists yet above the national level.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A Union of Democratic States. Exactly. I've been saying something similar for a while now. Not only would such a union be more consistent with our values and culture, but it would also comprise all of the most powerful economies in the world, and many of the most powerful militaries. Purely by existing, and conferring benefits of free trade and mutual prosperity on its members, it would create a carrot encouraging other states to emulate those members and become democracies. Eventually, it would be the best candidate (in my opinion) to form the nucleus of a true global government.

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect? It is this, not his attitude towards the U.N., that bothers me most about his uncompromising nationalism.

There isn't any realistic prospect for such a Union in the near future. Europe can't even keep their much less ambitious EU organization from stalling and straining against itself, and it's nearly certain to get worse as their Boomers rise up the life-stage ladder. For all our commonalities, the major Western liberal democracies remain separate communities, with too many divisions on basic tangible and even more basic intangible elements of our societies for such a union to be practically workable. If we try to add in major non-Western democracies such as Japan, it becomes effectively impossible.

I won't be stunned to see some parts of Europe merge into a single state in the not-too-distant future, though.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

International affairs are about self-interest, not community values or the rule of law. You can't have the later two until you have an actual, functioning community, and nothing of the sort exists yet above the national level.

Yes, no and maybe.

On the economic side, some say that if the US hadn't gone unilateral preemptive, the UN would shortly have killed the sanctions, and French and Russian companies would have been contracted to handle the Iraqi oil. Some still assert that the best way to understand the situation is to follow the money.

On the self defense side, some say Bush believed Iraqi WMDs were a genuine threat. Others disagree.

On the human rights side, abuse can get you into trouble. Both Saddam and Bush got into some trouble due to rights abuse.

I tend to see multiple reasons for many if not most conflicts. The ruling elite are indeed out to increase their power and profits. The (expletive deleted) elite are often ready to profit from use of military force. Still, they cannot tell the People that is why they are acting. The (expletive deleted) elite will always present cover reasons, excuses, propaganda, to justify their use of violence.

Wars might be initiated by the elites for self interest, but they are fought by the People for ideals. The US soldiers are not fighting to increase oil profits. The Iraqi resistance fighters are not risking their lives to have Russian and French oil companies present rather than American and British. The US voters will not vote Bush in or out depending on how their oil stocks perform.

And bottom line, it is in everyone's selfish best interests to support factions that will grant them basic human dignity, and resist factions that don't. To the extent that the US is perceived as acting in our economic self interest, without respecting basic human rights, it is in the world's self interest to resist us. If we intend to lead the world, rather than conquer it, it will be necessary to act morally. This means reducing the division of wealth between the First and Third worlds, rather than acting selfishly. This means being allies to those denied the Four Freedoms, rather than being the oppressors.

And the further we get from 3T mode to 4T mode, the more important an idealistic vision becomes, the less short term profits matter. Come the true crisis, the bad guys are the establishment attempting to maintain a privileged status quo. The good guys are pushing equality, human rights, and opportunity for all. (And profits for new elites who wish to disenfranchise the old elites.) The Gray Champion will not be optimizing the self interests of the old dominant groups, but will build a future that includes many now disenfranchised.

As Napoleon said, The moral is to the physical as three to one.

H.C., circumstances are currently changing radically. There is greater prospect for a UDS in the near future (meaning in the next couple of decades) than you might suppose.

The beginnings of it could grow from what Kerry says he wants to do about our trade agreements. Provisions requiring respect for labor rights and environmental protection, if enforced, could quickly divide the world into those who respect these things and can trade freely with each other (which tend to be the advanced democracies), and those who don't and can't. The problem of radical terrorism, which cannot be solved through national effort, and the global economic and environmental/resource problems we also face, provide a further spur for cooperative efforts.

Things are changing.