It seems a comment on a post from reader Metal-or-die about Ahmed Chalabi’s involvement in fueling the protests against Jordan might have a kernel of truth to it.
This from the Jordan Times [full article here]:
A top Iraqi Shiite leader Imam Mohammad Mahdi Khalisi joined the lawmakers in rejecting the allegations. Petra quoted a statement by Khalisi’s office in Baghdad as accusing Iraqi politician “Ahmed Chalabi and an intelligence agency in an Iraq neighboring country of attempting to harm Jordan-Iraq ties.”
A Jordanian court sentenced Chalabi to 22 years in prison for fraud and embezzling $288 million from Petra Bank, which he founded and ran until its collapse in 1989, and moving the funds into Swiss accounts.”
Interesting revelation, no?
Or meant to seem that way = )
Who knows these days. I think the Iranians have since 1988 been utter, utter, utter geniuses in the Middle East game.
Sometimes, you just have to sit back in awe and amazement.
Seriously.
Oh come on! We‘re not that cheap to get a free domian from the Republic of Nauru 😉 Looks like a work of an amateur.
aka Jeff,
Gosh that is a much better name.
Anyways, you are so right. And you know what, I have noticed, as someone who has grown up in the US, on the other side of the border from the US and across the ocean from the US – two things have happened in America.
1) one group of Americans has become isolationist – as our friend freely admitted to – who really dont care what the rest of the world thinks and
2) one group of Americans has become more internationalised i.e. – they have started to engage other cultures because of 9/11 and because of Bush’s re-relection
It is group number 2 that gives me hope that America will one day lead as it once did.
It is real easy to say them thar folks hate us all cos we gots freedom. That sounds a lot like Ann Coulter.
I find it mighty presumptive to state what Americans want, see, feel or perceive with comments like: “It’s not particularly important to Americans what the rest of the world thinks of us.” I will not endeavor to provide an equivalent retort, as it would be just as flawed. But I will provide the results of a recent poll from the Washington Post and ABC News (full story):
I’m pleased to see a great deal of the changes coming in the Middle East and I do understand the ‘economic motive’ and how the fight was brought to the American doorstop, making it impossible to ignore. But how Iraq got bound into an attack by al-Qaeda remains a great stumbling block in the nobility of this action. More disturbing still is the number of people that continue to believe Sadaam had something to do with it.
I think the real concern here should be the end justifying the means. Things are moving in a good way in some senses but they could just as easily have not and they could still go straight into the crapper. Not one of my favorite columnists but an interesting read none-the-less, Eric Alterman had this to say:
Oh, gotta a gripe?
Write them:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dude, if you’re going to define something, define it right.
Imperialism is not merely conquest and annexation…you’re thinking in military terms. You forget the economic context of it all.
Here is a better definition, since you clearly fail to go the whole nine yards.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
The US is clearly establishing economic and political hegemony over other nations. You have clearly stated, restated, and reiterated that with such phrases as coming in to fix things, giving you a second chance, the free flow of oil must go on, etc.
And I called you an imperialist. Guess what, am calling you an imperialst again. What is an imperialist? Well, besides choking on your own confessions (learn when to shut up next time) an imperialist is one who supports the aforemention, i.e. imperialism.
Toodles and pssst, nice try.
Imperialism is the conquest and annexation of territory and nations into a single geopolitical entity. That’s not what the U.S. is doing. You can shout “imperialism” all you want, but you’re using the wrong word and anybody with a brain is going to write you off as an ignoramus. “Hegemony” isn’t entirely off-track, but there’s nothing to be done about that.
As for calling me a neo-con, I don’t even know what that term means. Nobody seems to be able to define it to any degree of clarity any more. It formerly was used to define formerly socialist Jews who’d become conservatives and also devotees of Leo Stern, but I’m neither. I’m actually more of a paleo-com in the Albert Jay Nock tradition – reasonably isolationist, not a big fan of NATO or the UN, “speak softly and carry a big stick”. Truth is, I was pretty wary of our involvement in the Middle East before 9/11 – didn’t really see it as our concern. But it’s our concern now. I wish the situation was otherwise. Blame Osama bin Ladin and his merry band of psychos – I do.
Good you and a parrot do a great job repeating the Neo-con agenda.
Thanks, I already heard it. Got anything a little more intelligent?
And nah, I did mean imperialist, which you have proven yet again.
Keep talking.
Yes, I could be more imperialist. I could actually be for impressing Iraq into an empire. Do you even know what “imperialism” or “empire” means? Think Ottoman, think British, think Roman. Iraq will pay no fealty to Washington, nor would we want it to. I think the word you’re looking for is “condescending” – and yes, I can be.
Look – this was your problem and the U.S. had to come in and fix it for you. Iraq is getting another chance, and it will have the United States standing by to help it erect lasting democratic institutions. Japan was a semi-feudal mess when the U.S. occupied it in 1945 – there’s no reason Iraq can’t make a similar jump, and pull much of the rest of the Middle East along with it.
The whole world has been moving forward for decades – except Africa and the Middle East. But instead of putting your own house in order, the primary activity for which Arabs have become known worldwide is terrorism. I was in the World Trade Center on 9/11 – I left the complex a few minutes before the first plane hit. I watched it all happen. Understand this: the craziness and violence of the Middle East will not be allowed to infect North America. There were several ways to play this, and you should be glad – very, very glad – that Bush has chosen to be constructive and liberal with both Iraq and Afghanistan. As I mentioned above – we have thousands of meticulously cared-for nuclear weapons and a dozen carrier groups. If Bush’s goal was to destroy Arab civilization or even Islam itself, he could accomplish it in an afternoon. Some people seem to think that’s on the agenda – it’s not.
I certainly don’t know anywhere near as much about Iraq as you, but I was speaking of the political culture of Iraq, the urban culture. Perhaps “bedouin” was a bad choice of words. I know tribes remain important, and that people tend to place clan values above universal values. But Iraq has been the site of major cities for thousands of years. It’s the cradle of civilization. It has a civic culture. Contrast that with Arabia. Iraqis know how to govern themselves and how to live together with a degree of tolerance – they just need a little push. Everybody needs a little push now and then – that’s not an inherently condescending point of view.
We don’t expect you to like us. It’s not particularly important to Americans what the rest of the world thinks of us. We just want to be able to conduct our trade and maintain some stability in the world. When this is all over, Iraqis will be far better off than before, and the spirit of the elections might very well spread and become persistent in other Arab (and Persian?) lands. You should make the best of this and stop floating your conspiracy theories.
Sterling,
Good Lord! Iraq is probably the most unique among Arab countries because despite its past secularism, Baathism, nationalism, militarism and modernity it still retains strong Bedouin influences. Despite the fact that women in Iraq once enjoyed the best status compared to their Arab sisters and despite a civil society that was advanced and comparable to the middle class in Europe, Bedouin traditions still linger.
Leave Baghdad and drive in all directions, you will come across entire villages living along Bedouin principles – tribal principles, except not in tents but in houses and with cars and satellite dishes.
I once remember being stopped at a military checkpoint outside Dhouk in the north of Iraq. The officer did not think my papers were in order and thought I should go back to Turkey to Gazi Entep and get new authorisation.
We argued and then he asked who my grandfather was. So I told him. Then he asked what tribe I belonged to. So I told him – the Obaid. He immediately hugged me and said we were kin because he came from an offshoot of the Obaid. He gave me tea and a cold drink – it was July – and allowed me entry.
You talked about the so-called parliament earlier…check how many tribesman are in it. Ask yourself why Chalabi, Talabani and Allawi have been trying to court the tribes. Saddam even feared the bedouin tribes. He kept them in check with loads of cash and prominent positions in the security forces.
You don’t know Iraq, so please stop talking like you do. If Iraq becomes a stable state, the US will be able to fully dedicate itself to Iran, as mentioned in my previous post. Iran will not allow that to happen.
If Iraq becomes a stable state, the first event will be the secession of the Kurdish north – effectively 1/3rd of the country. The Shia and Sunnis will not allow that to happen. The Turks will not allow that to happen. So Turkish intelligence is playing quite the dirty role in northern Iraq.
Furthemore, I noticed you used phrases like “giving them a chance to start over”, “incubate popularly responsive states”.
Could you be more imperialist?