The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: October 28, 2006

198 comments on DrumBeat: October 28, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 9:20am

Another good reason to get the hell out of Dodge...er...Baghdad.

Iraq Taps Chinese Oil Companies to Double Production

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Iraq will invite China National Petroleum Corp. and other overseas companies to invest in oil fields to double daily production to 6 million barrels by 2012, the country's oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani said.
``We need foreign partners to help develop new fields,'' al- Shahristani said at a press conference today in Beijing. ``Iraq will significantly increase its oil production in the next few years and China will significantly raise its imports. That's why the two countries will need to work closely together.''

But in all fairness to the Chinese:

China was approached after U.S. companies refused to work in Iraq, Al Khashab was cited as saying. Chinese companies have dismissed security threats, he said, without giving details.

U.S. companies refuse to sacrifice their workers but the Chinese, having an excess of workers to sacrifice, are perfectly willing to do so. I suspect any worker who refused to go to Iraq would be sacrificed at home instead.

Hell, makes sense to me!

Sorry for the sarcasm but the word just came on CNN that the death toll had reached 98 so far this month, fourth highest month ever, and we still have three and one half days to go. I just feel like a little sarcasm this morning.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

haggisbasher on October 28, 2006 - 9:33am

Ron,

Little sarcasm for you.-

Death toll 98 so far this month. You of course are talking about real people, not the approx 4,000 rag heads of assorted varieties who don't matter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 9:44am

Haggisbasher, agreed. However the vast majority of the 4,000 were killed in the civil war, a civil war in which we have no damn business participating in.

If we left, they would go on killing each other, just as they have done for the last twelve hundred years, until one of them got the upper hand, became an absolute dictator, and the killing would then be stopped. Well, it would be stopped except for the occasional execution or village massacure of course.

In that world death is a way of life.

(Is that an oxymoron or what?)

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 28, 2006 - 9:50am

Some cycnical people might be tempted to suggest that the civil war isn't something entirely outside US control of course.

But I'd agree you (and we) shouldn't be participating in it - its just a shame we started it in the first place.

I'd also note the criticism you make of "that world" apply equally to us in the west as well - in fact I think we've probably spent a lot more time killing each other over the last 1200 years than they have...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

southpaw on October 28, 2006 - 1:02pm

Ditto Big Gav's comments.

To be fair to the Iraqis it is worth pointing out that
some aspects of ethnic tension and the civil war are a direct result of Western policies that led to the formation of present day Iraq.

A brief reveiw from Wiki:

"Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hâshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt, Britain used phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers. Legal experts consider phosphorus bombs chemical weapons."

So much for all the railing against Saddam gassing the Kurds to put them in their place.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on October 28, 2006 - 3:11pm

Phosphorous is an incendiary weapon, used for marking targets and smokescreens. You can use it against personnel and it is extremely terrifying. Chemical weapons are ussually considered the nerve agents blister agents, choking gases and a few others. The concept is they don't harm you through kinetic or thermal energy but through interruption of organ or cellular sytems at the chemical level. Willy Pete is a nasty SOB though, and I am not advocating its use on civilians only arguing the difference.

Although did the British have bombers in 1920-22?

Wikipedia is written by anyone with an internet hookup. Lots of great information marbled with disinformation and mistakes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508598.htm

here is an article on WP use.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Squalish on October 28, 2006 - 4:12pm

White phosphorous is often used as an incendiary weapon, but it serves well enough as a lethal purely chemical burn agent by creating phosphoric acid in the skin, and the smoke is used as a primarily nonlethal chemical weapon at high concentrations - it's used in Iraq to flush out tunnels.

They had these aircraft before 1918.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

2Lab on October 28, 2006 - 5:06pm

If Phosphorous isn't bad enough, mustard gas was also used on the Kurds by the RAF during the 20's - 30's.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

southpaw on October 28, 2006 - 6:12pm

"Although did the British have bombers in 1920-22?"

I've read accounts of the Brits experimenting with bomb throwers in 1914 (and they were very pleased with the results). I have no idea how the Brits delivered whatever chemical weapons they may have used, but it doesn't seem like planes were necessary to accomplish the task.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PhilRelig on October 28, 2006 - 5:26pm

Someone told me the British merely used teargas and he cited some declassified internal documents that certainly made it seem like this is all it was. Am I being duped here? What is the historical real deal?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 29, 2006 - 12:36am

My understanding is the British both had (primitive) bombers and used mustard gas (plenty of that left from World War 1).

Winston Churchill was actually behind the exercise, which has led plenty of people to compare Saddam to Churchill...

While you can doubt Wikipedia, it is no different to any other publication at the end of the day - history is rewritten again and again - and biased reporting and propaganda are just as likely to appear in the Washington Times or on Fox News (or Prensa Latina or the World Socialist website if you want to go the other way) as they are on Wikipedia (which at least tries to be objective and has accompanying debate and citations with each article).

Here's some history from a Kurdish web site, who presumably don't have any ideological axe to grind with the British nowadays.

The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad. The British were not much kinder to the Kurds. It is wrongly preserved that the first regime that used poison gases against Kurds was Saddam Hussein's government. This is wrong. British were the first regime to gas Kurds in South Kurdistan.
In this book, 'Deterring Democracy', Noam Chomsky describes British rule in South Kurdistan as follows: [1]

As Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Churchill was approached by the RAF Middle East Command for permission to use chemical weapons 'against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment.' Churchill authorized the experiment, dismissing objections:
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases; gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Churchill added: 'we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non utilization of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.' Chemical weapons were merely 'the application of Western science to modern warfare.'
Churchill was in favour of using air power and poison gas against 'uncivilized tribes' and 'recalcitrant Arabs' i.e. Kurds and Afghans [2]. Not surprisingly, in the 1990s, William Waldegrave, who was in charge of Prime Minister John Major's 'open government' initiative, ordered the removal from the Public Record Office of 'files detailing how British troops had used poison gas against Iraqi dissidents including Kurds in 1919 [2].

In this way, a people who wished to run their own affairs were oppressed to the limit of genocide. Their King was undermined by the mighty British forces and an 'imported' King from totally different culture was forced upon them.
The history has been written with the blood of the oppressed by the oppressing people. When the writings are still wet, the concept of `civilised and uncivilised' people emerges. The more oppressed people bleed, the larger the history books get. The history fails to report commensurately the suffering of the oppressed. In this way, we build, what we term, 'civilisation'.

Presumably the Chomsky book has a whole lot of citations if he follows his normal practice.

You can find plenty more on the topic at Google.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Essex Land Rover Man on October 29, 2006 - 5:56pm

As John Fortune would say describing Churchill's enthusiasm for gassing Kurds, "Another first for British civilisation". The only reason we didn't gas the Kurds was because we couldn't get the gas bombs to fit to the bombers correctly. Nice to know that us Brits would do something that Hitler had second thoughts about (Hitler had nerve gas but didn't use it because he thought the Allies had nerve gas and would respond in kind).

There was a Bremner, Bird and Fortune program called "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" several years ago where it compared 1920's British policy to Iraq and the 2000's US policy to Iraq. Very funny and very sad at the same time. A very British perspective on Iraq.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

garytencents on October 28, 2006 - 11:33am

D -

The reality is you don't know how 'those' people would act after the Roman Legions decide to high tail it back to the Circus Maximus. 'Those' people might just turn into Abu Dhabi, or Pre-Israel Lebanon, or Tunisia. Please, please reconsider before generalized smearing... or perhaps just stick to energy issues

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 12:21pm

Garytencents, your egalitarianism, is to be commended, if that is what it is. But if it is just political correctness, then you need to brush up on your Middle Eastern history.

No one, to my way of thinking, is smearing anyone. I lived with the Arabs for five years; I know how they think. I lived in an area where the Shiites were in the majority but where the Sunnis held all the power. Only the iron hand of the Monarchy kept them from going at each other's throats.

The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing each other for twelve hundred years. If you don't know that much then you just don't know shit about the Islam do you? And pointing out that little fact is not smearing anyone. So if you cannot speak with knowledge as to what the hell you are talking about, then it would be best that you just kept silent.

And my original post had everything to do with energy. It was all about the Chinese taking over Iraqi oil fields.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jim burke on October 28, 2006 - 1:12pm

The fighting between shi'ites and sunnis has been sporadic over the centuries, dampened down by (sunni) Ottoman occupation for half a millennium.

But we must remember that Iraq was consciously gerrymandered by Britain under Churchill to keep the oil provinces together, and placed under a Hashemite who had fought with TE Lawrence, and then lost his homeland (mecca and medina) to the Sau'dis.

The Hashemites were sunni, of course, and were foreigners to the Iraqis, but propping up the continution of minority Sunni rule served British purposes. And that rule had to be very harsh (a la Saddam) to keep it from fragmenting.

Still, the way Bush approached the situation was remarkable for its stupidity. Ignoring the advice of generals, state department, experts, and his own father, he not only knocked over Saddam, but he spent a leisurely first year destroying all elements of government institutions, including completely erasing the military and hunting down all government officials.

Complete chaos was the entirely predictable result.

It is possible that the present outcome would have happened anyway, but we will never know.

It is said that historians can make the outcome of any event seem preordained, but that doesn't make it so. If Iraq had been turned over the UN; if the US military had some training in peacekeeping (instead of shooting demonstrators); if neighboring countries had been drawn into discussions about how to proceed; if state department experts hadn't been systematically blackballed by the department of defense -- if Rumsfeld had followed the joint chiefs of staff recommendation to use 400,000 troops and quell looting -- it is possible that things might have gone differently, and it is possible that events might not be as horrid as they are now.

Unfortunately, the situation has become intolerable. After the Republicans get their asses kicked on November 7th, there will be a huge effort to get US forces out of Iraq. And since American forces are all that is holding off all out civil war and ethnic cleansing, that bodes ill for Iraq and the Middle East.

* * * * *

Here at TOD we like to look at graphs and charts, examining bottom up and top down approaches, to get a quantitative feel for how Peak Oil will play out. However, the fallout from Bush's disastrous war will likely blindside these endeavors.

It is like meticulously planning how much lumber can be harvested from a forest -- while hot summer winds are fanning a forest fire that threatens to destroy the entire forest.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on October 28, 2006 - 1:40pm

Ever heard of Venezuela? Or Bolivia? The Chinese aren't "taking over" anything. Oilfields are inalienable national assets, simply because of the physical impossibility of relocating several hundred cubic kilometres of reservoir, fluids, aquifer and overburden outside whichever set of national boundaries happens to be drawn around them.

These deals require the foreign partner to make a sole risk investment in wells and facilities, in exchange for a priority share of incremental production until the capital investment is paid back, usually at LIBOR+1 or 2 or something equally derisory. After that it's strictly cost recovery plus whatever sliver of profit the lowest bidder is prepared to accept, based on their own oil price projections.

Rates of return are typically in single digits. It's OK business, but not spectacular. You can make more money drilling infills in the Supermajors' discard reservoirs in the NOrth Sea, and nobody is shooting at you there. >90% of the value, and none of the risk, goes to the host government. In exchange, CNOOC or Sinopec get to put their logo on the tank farm gate. Golly gee.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 2:06pm

Ever heard of Venezuela? Or Bolivia? The Chinese aren't "taking over" anything.

And you think China, drilling and dodging bullets in Iraq will be doing the same thing as Shell is doing in Venezuela? Wow! By what logic did you come to that conclusion. Shell, and the other oil companies are in Bolivia, Venezuela, or wherever, because they are in the oil business and wish to make a profit for their shareholders. China, Mr. Underdog, does not have shareholders.

China will not be in Iraq, getting their ass shot off, in order to make sure the U.S. and the rest of the world has enough oil. And neither are they there in order to make a profit for China, or anyone in China. China is trying to make deals with Iraq, with Venezuela, and with anyone else they can deal with, for one reason and one reason only. They wish to insure that they will have oil when the things get tough.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mwilbert on October 28, 2006 - 2:19pm

The story you linked says the Chinese oil companies will be working in Iraq. For the record, they do have shareholders, even American ones. On the other hand, I agree that the reason they are going there is to improve their ability to obtain oil in the future, not that I see anything wrong with that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on October 28, 2006 - 3:24pm

About a hundred years ago, Britain went into Iran to secure its oil supply. HMG bought a controlling stake in Anglo-Persian - the corporate ancestor of BP - to secure fuel supplies for the Royal Navy. As I'm sure you know.

Would you care to remind me how that worked out again?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on October 28, 2006 - 4:58pm

Hi Ron,

Maybe I should have been more explicit. The logic here was that Venezuela and Bolivia - specifically - are undertaking a creeping expropriation of the FOCs' fixed assets, claiming a share of the economic rent that brings the FOCs' rate of return down to corporate bond levels, and/or reasserting the right to market their own hydrocarbons. Not for the first time in their history, of course; these things tend to come in cycles.

Based on your first-hand knowledge of the Middle East, what aspect of Arab culture is going to protect the Chinese from a similar fate at some point in the future? Won't all their agreements with the present lot be just as useless as the ones that the British had back in the 1920s? OK, maybe it won't be the Americans next time, but the Indians are waiting in line...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 5:35pm

Plucky Underdog, thanks for the explination, and I agree. Concerning your question below:

Based on your first-hand knowledge of the Middle East, what aspect of Arab culture is going to protect the Chinese from a similar fate at some point in the future? Won't all their agreements with the present lot be just as useless as the ones that the British had back in the 1920s? OK, maybe it won't be the Americans next time, but the Indians are waiting in line...

Absolutely nothing will make the Iraqis keep their word. Well, perhaps the threat of hoards of Chinese invading them, or the nuclear threat? But I don't think either of those options are all that likely. But there is always that possibility. And if resource wars are truly in our future, who knows?

Of course the Chinease can only gamble here, and hope that Iraq will honor any agreement. Not bloody likely, but what have they to lose?

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NeverLNG on October 28, 2006 - 2:47pm

Darwinian--

I have lived with Christians for 63 years. I know how they think; that is, in fact, my profession. I find that The Iron Hand of the Monarchy has been perfectly suited to driving them to kill millions of each other. In the absence of Monarchy, they seem to get along just fine. Most of the time.

Is there a racial difference? Is it genetic, or epigenetic?

In fact, until the Western Monarchists arrived, the Arabs didn't have Monarchs. And they weren't much interested in New York, or anywhere else, except to trade and get slaves. Of course, that was before OIL. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 4:36pm

I have lived with Christians for 63 years. I know how they think; that is, in fact, my profession. I find that The Iron Hand of the Monarchy has been perfectly suited to driving them to kill millions of each other. In the absence of Monarchy, they seem to get along just fine. Most of the time.

NeverLNG, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. What Iron Hand drove whom? Of course Monarchs have driven people to kill. But if you are a student of history then you know Monarchs, historically, have always ruled with an iron hand. And that iron hand has kept dynasties in power for hundreds of years. Remember, Mr. NeverLNG, we were talking about the peace in Saudi Arabia. And there, they are not killing each other precisely because of the Monarchy.

Is there a racial difference? Is it genetic, or epigenetic?

Huh? What in the hell are you talking about? Do you mean between Christians and Arabs? Hell, I would guess that it is cultural.

In fact, until the Western Monarchists arrived, the Arabs didn't have Monarchs.

Surely you jest. Mesopotamia, as well as the rest of the Arab world has had Monarchs since at least a thousand years before Hammurabi.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

elwoodelmore on October 28, 2006 - 8:19pm

ron patterson mind reader

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ImSceptical on October 28, 2006 - 4:05pm

Darwinian, do you have any proof that the Iraqis are killing each other en masse? From the fact that all the corpses are bound and have been tortured suggests that they were killed by Negoponte's death squads.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 4:51pm

From the fact that all the corpses are bound and have been tortured suggests that they were killed by Negoponte's death squads.

That comment is not worthy of a reply. Just because they have been bound and tortured, you suggest that this, by definition, means that they were bound and tortured by order of, a US diplomat.

Let me remind you that both Shiites and Sunnis have been found to have been bound and tortured. Are you suggesting that Negroponte was responsible for both? And how about the suicide bombers were under the command of Negroponte as well? Or perhaps he was just responsible for the car bombs, set off remotely with no suicide involved?

Please explain to me, Mr. Sceptical, exactly why one of Mr. Bush's diplomats would wish to make his boss look so very stupid by making the war go so very bad. God knows Bush does not need any help in looking stupid. But some of his critics look far stupider in the suggestions they make.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

elwoodelmore on October 28, 2006 - 8:23pm

why do you respond to comments not worthy of a reply ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 29, 2006 - 12:56am

Why isn't it worthy of a reply ? Given the concept was documented pretty widely in the mainstream media a few years ago (and its copying previous counter-insurgency tactics used in central america) it doesn't seem all that controversial an assertion - probably the most likely explanation of where all the death squads appeared from in fact.

If you read between the lines of most reports of massacres and torture in Baghdad with that idea in mind, you might find it becomes pretty obvious...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ImSceptical on October 29, 2006 - 1:10am

Try Guatemala during the 80's when Negroponte was the ambassador, and death squads were running rampant. Funny, how the same Americans keep cropping up in the same situations. Or try the Phoenix prrogram in Vietnam, not run by Negroponte, but the same tatic - murder those who may be sympathetic to the resistance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 29, 2006 - 12:49am

Its probably worth citing some sources to give that comment some context:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0110/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4209595.stm
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=salvador+option

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jkissing on October 30, 2006 - 4:29pm

THere's a lot of dead men, women and children iraqis who would be alive today if we had not invaded. But, for most americans, including the media, this is not a significant concern... our own financial and human costs are all we are concerned with.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 28, 2006 - 2:28pm

Dat ole Debbil Racism done found hisself a Home at TOD.
I really don't know many places in 2006 where the prejudice is so overt as passes muster here. Covert, sure, plenty of that.
For the record, 'killing' goes on in any and all human groups. Iraq has no history of civil war. None.
And even while diverted by the sectarian strife them mizzuble lil Ayrab savages be kickin our proud Caucasian butt right out dere country.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 3:20pm

Dat ole Debbil Racism done found hisself a Home at TOD.
I really don't know many places in 2006 where the prejudice is so overt as passes muster here. Covert, sure, plenty of that.

To play the race card when there is absolutely no racism present is the mark of a scoundrel. It is the mark of a person who has no argument, doesn't know how to make a logical argument, so he just sneers and cries "racism".

For the record, 'killing' goes on in any and all human groups. Iraq has no history of civil war. None.

That is about the most stupid remark I have read all year. As one blogger put it:

Anyone who has ever read a history book knows that Iraq (Mesopotamia) has been at civil war for centuries.

That's right, for centuries! That area of the Middle East is "historically" by far the bloodiest area of the world, with the possible exception of Jerusalem.

So obviously Oldhippie has never read a book, well not a history book on the Middle East anyway. And there is nothing racist about discussing the history of civil war in Iraq. To claim that it is racist is nothing but political correctness gone to seed. Either that or pure stupidity, I am not sure which.

And here is what we have just in the last half of the Twentieth Century:

Iraqi Army Revolt/Coup- (July 14, 1958)--Brigadier General Abdul Karim el Qassim overthrows the royal government of King Faisal II. Both the king and Prime Minister Nouri al Said are killed. Qassim soon withdrew Iraq from the pro-Western Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union.
Mosul (Iraq) Revolt--(March, 1959)--Pro-Qassim communist militia , called the People's Resistance Force, violently suppressed an anti-Qassim Sunni Army faction made up mostly of junior officers.
Kirkuk (Iraq) Violence -(1959)--Pro-Qassim(pro-Communist) Kurds and People's Resistance Force killed ethnic Turkomen in Kirkuk .
Iraqi Kurdish Revolt--(1961-1970) -After a period of relative calm, Iraqi government promises of Kurdish autonomy, or self-rule, went unfulfilled, sparking discontent and eventual rebellion among the Kurds in 1961.
Iraqi Kurdish Revolt -(March, 1974) --In March, 1974, Kurdish rebels led by Mullah Mustafa Barzani (having survived an assassination attempt) rebelled against the government. The Kurds felt that the government was not living up to the agreement which ended the previous revolt.
Intra-Iraqi Kurdish warfare (1978-1979) --In 1975, Jalal Talabani formed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)-urban-based and leftist) in opposition the Barzani-led Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP).
Iraqi Shia unrest in Karbala -(February, 1979)--Suppressed by the Saddam regime. Under Saddam Hussein, the Shiites (Shia) were a persecuted religious group, both despite the fact, and because of, their numerical majority in the country.
Iraqi Kurdish Revolt--(1991) -Encouraged by the sudden defeat of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and spurred by appeals by President George H. W. Bush of the U.S., Kurds rose up against the Iraqi government With the bulk of his elite forces having escaped from the fighting in Kuwait and southern Iraq, Saddam was able to smash the revolt, causing hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees to flee into neighboring Turkey and Iran to escape.
Intra-Iraqi Kurdish warfare --(1996) - Combat between various Kurdish militias.

And if I tried to list all the Civil Wars in that general area in the last four thousand years I would need a book.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on October 28, 2006 - 4:07pm

Hi Ron,

Can we keep the discussion on a civilized level, please? If the race card is the mark of a scoundrel, ad hominem is the next step down. You shouldn't care about the opinion of folk who can't spot faulty logic, though it is polite (and far more devastating) to point out their mistakes. We would all be genuinely interested in specific examples from your personal experience in the Middle East, if they are relevant to the topic at hand.

> That area of the Middle East is "historically"
> by far the bloodiest area of the world

I think we all agree that Akkadians, Arabs, Armenians, Balochs, Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, Kurds, Macedonians, Mongols, Parthians, Pathans, Persians, Romans, Sogdians, Trojans and Turks have been bopping themselves and each other over the head about honour, territory and God, on and off, for as long as there has been anyone around to write it down. Whether that is "bloodier" than the concentrated industrial killings of the 20th Century (1.2E5 in one night at Tokyo, for example; or 5E3 Hungarian Jews per day at Auschwitz for several weeks) is another matter.

Peace.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 7:28pm

Plucky, nothing I said can even remotely be classified as racist. Therefore anyone who plays the race card is not being civil. He is resorting to emotional arguments when the argument should be based on logic and reason. Therefore I am being civil. The one who plays the race card is not being civil.

If you do not agree, please explain exactly why.

I am truly sorry sorry if I get overly pissed off over people who continually play the race card when no racism is involved. But living in the southern part of the USA as I do, I see such abhorrent behavior all too often.

And I will continue to call such people scoundrals, because that is exactly what they are.

Sorry if that pisses you off.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 28, 2006 - 7:37pm

It's you who's playing the race card.

Anyone living in the US bold enough to not look at their own country, but instead pointing at other peoples and condemning their bloody pasts, indeed needs a history lesson.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 8:12pm

It's you who's playing the race card.

Please back up that statement! What statement have I made that was racist.

Put up or shut up!

Anyone living in the US bold enough to not look at their own country, but instead pointing at other peoples and condemning their bloody pasts, indeed needs a history lesson.

I have continually condemned Bush and company for the very stupid mistakes they have made. But your mistake is thinking it is my country who is to blame for the debacle in Iraq. Hell no, it is G.W. Bush's and company's fault. It is he who is responsible for the 3,000 American soldiers who are dead in Iraq as well as the several hundred thousand Iraqi's who are just as dead.

I am pissed off at Bush and the Republicans. I am not pissed off at Americans. And if this pisses you off, then just be pissed off. Sure a lot of very stupid Americans voted for Bush. But more Americans voted against him than voted for him, even in the last election. Yes, I believe electronic voting machines in Ohio were hacked.

But I challenge you to point out my racist statement or apologize.

And anyone who thinks John Negroponte has death squads torturing both Sunnis and Shiites, and blowing up Iranians with car bombs, is not a racist, they are just ..... Well, you tell me Roel. Do you think Negroponte is responsible for causing the war to go so bad, causing his boss all that misery? Do you think that is a logical argument?

See what I am up against. I cannot point out the most stupid argument possible without being called a racist.

It was Samuel Johnson who said; "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." If he were alive today I truly believe he would say; "Playing the race card is the last refuge of the scoundrel." People who, because of a lack of intellectual capacity, are unable to make a logical argument, simply play the race card. If Johnson were alive today they would be the target of his wrath, not patriots. Of course a lot of patriots are a scoundrel also.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 28, 2006 - 8:49pm

You are the one pointing to the people living in what is now Iraq, calling them prone to warfare. "That area of the Middle East is "historically" by far the bloodiest area of the world."

That is abjectnonsense, and because the people you involve are of another race, it is racist. Or try "Absolutely nothing will make the Iraqis keep their word." I find it hard to believe anyone utters this.

And also, all the examples you give of conflicts in the area postdate western interference and dividing up the region in arbitrary nation states that never existed prior. I'll bet you that half of these battles were instigated by western forces. Often through the puppet Saddam.

I don't care about Negroponte, but there is no doubt that divide and rule is played by the US these days in Iraq, as it has been through the past 100 years or more. From their point of view, it would be silly if it were not.

Wash your hands of US caused blood all you want. Good luck with that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 9:46pm

You are the one pointing to the people living in what is now Iraq, calling them prone to warfare. "That area of the Middle East is "historically" by far the bloodiest area of the world."

And I added; "With the possible exception of Jerusalem". Of course Jerusalem is historically the bloodiest place in the world. And if you study history, that area, Mesopotamia or the Babylonian Empire, has been in almost continuous warfare since biblical times. Is this not so? How is this racism? Do you Roel, have the faintest idea what the word means. I think not.

That is abjectnonsense, and because the people you involve are of another race, it is racist. Or try "Absolutely nothing will make the Iraqis keep their word." I find it hard to believe anyone utters this.

You are quoting me out of context. That is a cheap trick and you know it. Plucky Underdog pointed out that Venezuela and Bolivia had not kept their word on certain oil agreements. And I was asked: "what aspect of Arab culture is going to protect the Chinese from a similar fate at some point in the future?" And I replied: Nothing is going to make the Iraqis keep their word. In other words Roel, they could suffer the same fate as did the contractors in Bolivia and Venezuela. Pointing that out is not racist.

But you have the audacity to call that racist. And the hard part is Roel, I think you know it is not racist. You just wish to try to win an argument without making any logical argument. "If you cannot answer a man's argument all is not lost. You can still call him vile names."

And also, all the examples you give of conflicts in the area postdate western interference and dividing up the region in arbitrary nation states that never existed prior. I'll bet you that half of these battles were instigated by western forces. Often through the puppet Saddam.

The Western forces were the British. And they were partially responsible for putting all those fighting factions inside one border. But beyond that, they did nothing to cause the conflicts, the conflicts that had actually been raging for centuries.

I don't care about Negroponte, but there is no doubt that divide and rule is played by the US these days in Iraq, as it has been through the past 100 years or more. From their point of view, it would be silly if it were not.

And that is just damn wrong. In fact nothing could be more wrong than that statement. The Americans in Iraq are doing everything possible to unite the people in Iraq. Their failure at doing so is why the war is going so bad. The Sunnis hate the Shiites and they both hate the Kurds. Their continuing to kill each other is causing the war to escalate out of control. Bush, as well as all the military generals in Iraq would like nothing better than for the Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds to all kiss and make up. If they did that he, and the Americans would be declared heroes for bringing peace to the area. That they are failing to do this is the main reason that the Republicans are facing such a challenge this election.

Do you actually believe Bush or the American military want all this Iraqis killing other Iraqis? Do you actually believe this works to their advantage? Good God man think! Ask yourself; "What would make Bush and the American military look bad, very bad?" Answer; "Exactly what is happening now!" What would make them look good, very good? Answer; "Peace! Everyone stops killing each other, everyone shakes hands and agrees to abide by the new constitution. A united, peaceful Iraq is exactly what everyone wants.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 28, 2006 - 10:30pm

My view: peace in Iraq serves no underlying US interests at this point in time. It would mean troop withdrawal. How would you ever get them back there for the next phase, or for simple protection of oil wells? They'll stay there. Seeing the warship concentration in the Gulf makes that abundantly clear. Divide and rule, works miracles. Peace doesn't.

As for the race thing, you should be able to admit you're wrong. Makes you a better man. There is not one nation or large group of people that is more prone to bloodshed or lying than another, except temporarily. Thre'll always be a tribe or people that delves into cruelty for a shorter time, but not for 1000's of years.

If you make that kind of statement about people from your own race, that is bigotry. When it's a different race, it's racism and bigotry. It's ugly and empty and dumb, and I don't like seeing that on a forum for smart people. You are the one lacking the logical argument. The cheap shots are duly noted.

You make statemants about entire regions and peoples, but when it comes to Americans, you want to make clear they're not all "like that". Can you see your own hint?

And I don't want to go into the bloodshed in Europe over the past 1000, or in the Americas over the past 500 years, but the idea is clear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on October 28, 2006 - 10:42pm

roel you do have a point. use divide and conquer tactics to keep the populace busy fighting themselves while we stay there with permanent bases to both encircle china(in a misguided attempt to prevent them from becoming a world super-power), while also ensuring Rockefeller type control of the oil there.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 28, 2006 - 11:08pm

I'm not sure what "they" want as per the next step (don't know who "they" are either), but having all those troops in the region is the basis for any potential next step (which would likely mean more troops, not less).

If there were peace, every mom and dad back home would be clamoring for their kids to be home by Christmas. Well, that doesn't work, does it?

To make sure that you can explain why they should stay, you need ongoing brouhaha. Which also helps to keep the population turn on each other, and not get together to throw you out. Blow up a mosque from time to time, sure thing.

But take it back a few steps: why did US and UK invade Iraq? To establish peace?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 11:06pm

My view: peace in Iraq serves no underlying US interests at this point in time. It would mean troop withdrawal. How would you ever get them back there for the next phase, or for simple protection of oil wells? They'll stay there. Seeing the warship concentration in the Gulf makes that abundantly clear. Divide and rule, works miracles. Peace doesn't.

Apparently you know absolutely nothing about American politics. Politicians look out for their own ass first and the ass of the nation second. What is happening in Iraq right now is killing Bush and the Republicans. And if you are unable to realize that simple fact then any further discourse with you would be fruitless.

As for the race thing, you should be able to admit you're wrong. Makes you a better man. There is not one nation or large group of people that is more prone to bloodshed or lying than another, except temporarily. Thre'll always be a tribe or people that delves into cruelty for a shorter time, but not for 1000's of years.

Roel, I have explained it to the very best of my ability. My last post could have not been clearer. Yet you still insist that it was racist. You are simply unable to admit you are wrong, either on the race thing or on our interest in Iraq. And you are not a better man because of this failure.

If you make that kind of statement about people from your own race, that is bigotry. When it's a different race, it's racism and bigotry. It's ugly and empty and dumb, and I don't like seeing that on a forum for smart people. You are the one lacking the logical argument. The cheap shots are duly noted.

What kind of statement? I was asked what would keep the Chinese from suffering the same fate as the contractors in Bolivia and Venezuela. I replied nothing. And you say that is racist. Good God man, where do you get off?

You make statemants about entire regions and peoples, but when it comes to Americans, you want to make clear they're not all "like that". Can you see your own hint?

Every historian makes statements about entire regions of peoples. Good God man, do you think there are no difference in cultures? And what the hell do you mean by all Americans not being "like that"? All Americans are not like anything, we are all different in one aspect or another. But I can read the polls and apparently you cannot. They tell us that over 60% of Americans want us to get the hell out of Iraq.

But the fact that you think making statements about difference in cultures is racist means you know absolutely nothing about anthropology. All cultures are different. Hell, if they were not then there would be no such thing as different cultures, we would all be the same. And if you make a statement about one culture or another, then you are making statements about "entire regions of peoples" as you call it. And the fact that you think that is racist is nothing but political correctness gone to seed.

And I don't want to go into the bloodshed in Europe over the past 1000, or in the Americas over the past 500 years, but the idea is clear.

Well hell Roel, no one mentioned bloodshed in America or Europe until now. But I think that you are hinting that there was plenty of bloodshed here and in Europe as well. Damn right there was, I have been preaching that story for years. There have been constant battles all over the world for as long as Homo sapiens have been on the scene. But some cultures are more violent than others. The Confuciusians were not a violent people and neither were the Buddhist. (Though there were exceptions.) It all depends on the culture, though you can find some violence in all cultures.

But if you think commenting on the differences in cultures is racism, then you are infected with that putrid disease called "political correctness". And the sad part of it is, people infected with this putrid disease have no idea they are sick.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 29, 2006 - 12:00am

Ron, your hole is getting so deep now I can't see your head anymore.

Tell me when you hit China.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kevembuangga on October 29, 2006 - 1:04am

The Americans in Iraq are doing everything possible to unite the people in Iraq.

Can you back this assertion?
I mean, not just by anecdotal evidence that some Americans do indeed act this way and believe this is "the goal".
What do YOU know about the real purposes of the Bush cabal you yourself despise?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on October 29, 2006 - 9:59am

Racist, n.: Someone who's winning an argument with a leftist.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sendoilplease on October 29, 2006 - 11:13am

LMAO!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MetaMeme on October 29, 2006 - 4:17pm

<pinching myself>

Nope, I don't seem to have strayed into peakoil.com ... but it sure feels like it sometimes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 28, 2006 - 7:22pm

Squabbles between squads of officers equals civil war? Come on now.
'Scuse me while I go de-evolve down to 4 foot tall.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 28, 2006 - 7:28pm

Revolts against oppressive regimes don't count as civil war either.
And as I read thru all the bilge on the thread above I feel like I'm at a Klan meeting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 28, 2006 - 8:50pm

So far the evidence of civil war being a normal feature of life in Iraq amounts to a shopping list of conflicts ckearly not civil wars and the word of a blogger named Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger who identifies himself as a freelance writer.

Now what makes anyone say the Iraqis are always in a civil war?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 28, 2006 - 10:45pm

Checking links. That shopping list of conflicts comes from "The History Guy". LOL

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 28, 2006 - 2:35pm

They only come up to your knees
The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.
I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.
So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.
I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
Their food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine, and lychees.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 29, 2006 - 1:03am

:-)

Nothing like a bit of Monty Python.

Though I must say anyone who thinks Chinese waiters aren't rude hasn't ever been to a normal Chinese restaurant...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ImSceptical on October 28, 2006 - 4:02pm

Ron. the Iraqis undoubtedly won't hate the Chinese, at least for awhile. They started hating Americans in the 90's. So, the Chinese could be successful; the Americans only road is the present policy of a slow genocide!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 28, 2006 - 10:17pm

ImSceptical wrote:

the Americans only road is the present policy of a slow genocide!

Utter rubbish, as you Brits would say. I assume you are British because of the way you spell "skeptical". Ninety nine percent of the killing in Iraq is being done by other Iraqis. Either that or other Arabs imported from neighboring states.

No one wants the killing to continue. That is not a road for anyone and it is just plain silly to imply that it is. Mr. Sceptical, we are having an election here in ten days. If the killing ended today, or had it ended a few months ago, the Republicans, (Bush's party) would be swept into office in a landslide. But because of the many deaths in Iraq, both American and Iraqi, the Democrats will win a majority in the House of Representatives, and perhaps the Senate. But the Senate will be close. And Bush's popularity is hitting rock bottom. If this "genocide" as you call it, continues until 2008, Bush's party will be kicked out of office on their asses.

Anyone who thinks things are going Bush's way, or the Republicans way, or the way most Americans would like it to go, is just so damn dumb it is pitiful.

Bush was absolutely stupid for going into Iraq in the first place. And he is trying to win, as two former presidents tried to win in Vietnam. But things are going terrible for Bush. And Bush's party will suffer greatly in this election because of it.

It is very easy to say things are going the way Bush wishes things to go. (Provided you don't think very clearly.) But that is just utterly dumb. This war is Bush's nightmare. He desperately wants to win and most Americans, myself included, wishes we would pull up stakes and get the hell out. Hell Sceptical, just read my first post, the one posted the very first today. As I said, we have another reason to get the hell out of Baghdad. And I am with most Americans in wishing we would.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on October 29, 2006 - 12:03am

this is not about elections. in-fact if you actually paid attention, they care little about their popularity as long as we 'stay the course' because if we do they would of had achieved their goal of Rockefeller type control of iraq's oil. second largest reserve next to s.a. if anything they probably think they will be heralded as hero's by their actions later by the history writers like they did with Lincoln.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on October 29, 2006 - 1:21am

I hate to harp on this (well, I don't really - but its polite to pretend to), but Iraq has the most oil (which explains permanent bases, death squads etc)...

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/greatest-prize-of-all.html
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

Iraq has by and large been kept as a spare oil reserve for the last 50 years - and now its the biggest source of cheap oil left...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kevembuangga on October 29, 2006 - 1:24am

Bush's party will be kicked out of office on their asses.

What about rigged voting machines you mentionned above in this thread?

Bush was absolutely stupid for going into Iraq in the first place.

May be it is not really Bush's decision?
And was it truly stupid?
Depends on what the purposes are and WHOSE purposes it is.
You assume that the US government is acting on behalf of "the Americans", are you sure?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BrianT on October 29, 2006 - 10:08am

Darwin: For a guy that is supposedly so stupid, GWB has made (and continues to make) a hell of a lot of money for a relative handful of people through this Iraq adventure.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

198 comments on DrumBeat: October 28, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”

—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)