Defense Skirts State in Reviving Iraqi Industry

[zimv20]

wash post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165_pf.html)


Paul Brinkley, a deputy undersecretary of defense, has been called a Stalinist by U.S. diplomats in Iraq. One has accused him of helping insurgents build better bombs. The State Department has even taken the unusual step of enlisting the CIA to dispute the validity of Brinkley's work.

His transgression? To begin reopening dozens of government-owned factories in Iraq.

Brinkley and his colleagues at the Pentagon believe that rehabilitating shuttered, state-run enterprises could reduce violence by employing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Officials at State counter that the initiative is antithetical to free-market reforms the United States should promote in Iraq.

The bureaucratic knife fight over the best way to revive Iraq's moribund economy illustrates how the two principal players in the reconstruction of Iraq -- the departments of Defense and State -- remain at odds over basic economic and political measures. The bickering has hamstrung initiatives to promote stability four years after Saddam Hussein's fall.

Under pressure from Congress to demonstrate progress on the ground, the military often favors immediate solutions aimed at quelling violence. That has prompted objections from some at State who question the long-term consequences of that expeditious approach.

In recent months, the two departments have squabbled over the degree to which Iraqi farmers should be aided by subsidies and tariffs. They also remain at odds over State's desire to deploy reconstruction teams to two Shiite-dominated provinces in central Iraq. Defense officials are balking at providing robust security for the teams, preferring to deploy as many troops as possible in Baghdad. State contends that well-protected American civilians in those provinces will build relationships with future Shiite leaders.

"There has been a surprising degree of venom and hostility" between the departments, said a senior U.S. government official involved in Iraq policy.

The dispute between State and Brinkley has become so pitched that he has effectively stopped working with the U.S. Embassy and is setting up his office elsewhere in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.

"We tend to not deal with them very often," Brinkley said of embassy officials. "We have our own mission, and we do our own thing."

Although the embassy's chargé d'affaires, Daniel Speckhard, said Brinkley "has the support of the embassy," Brinkley travels to factories without embassy personnel in tow and holds his own meetings with Iraqi trade, commercial and banking officials. He has also organized trips for U.S. business executives to Iraq and has encouraged deals between Iraqi state-owned firms and U.S. corporations.

Brinkley, who was interviewed in Washington, said he expects several factories to reopen this summer. By year's end, he envisions Wal-Mart stores selling made-in-Baghdad leather jackets and other U.S. retailers stocking Iraqi loafers, hand-stitched carpets and pinstripe suits.

Disagreements among Americans about how to deal with Iraq's government-run businesses began shortly after U.S. forces arrived in Baghdad in April 2003. The first U.S. adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Minerals, retired ambassador Timothy Carney, wanted to reopen many of the country's 192 state-owned factories, which, according to the World Bank, employed more than 500,000 people before the war.

But the U.S. occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer, deemed that to be bad economic policy. Many factories had produced substandard goods before the war and had since been looted. Fixing them would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Bremer wanted private investors to buy the factories, even as workers continued to be paid to stave off hardship.

But the hoped-for private investors never arrived. Factories remained shuttered, and the Iraqi government whittled down the payroll subsidies. Some former workers found new jobs. Others, U.S. military officials believe, joined the insurgency.

(more)

simply unbelievable. at least it would be if i hadn't lived through the last 6 years.

[obeygiant]

Brinkley said he felt stung by the opposition, but he took heart from the support of England and other Pentagon officials. He also countered with an analysis from the military's Joint Warfare Analysis Center, which asserted that a slight increase in job satisfaction among Iraqis led to as much as a 30 percent decline in attacks on coalition forces, according to a U.S. official familiar with its contents who supports Brinkley's efforts.

Sounds like a good plan, putting the Iraqis to work. How does that expression go? "Idle hands..."

[Thanatoast]

Sounds like State was just positive that investors would be ready to [I]jump right in[I/] to a former warzone to invest in substandard factoriesthat were recently state-owned and falling apart.

It's a lot more profitable to invest in armored car factories in the US and sell the military weapons to fend off pissed Iraqis than it is to invest in low-margin clothing factories in Iraq. Besides, employing Iraqis would cut into your weapons sales to the US military. I notice Halliburton didn't build any leather coat factories...

[Swarmlord]

Sounds like a good plan, putting the Iraqis to work. How does that expression go? "Idle hands..."

I was trying to remember what it was that Arabs were good at manufacturing and drew a blank.:confused:

[obeygiant]

I was trying to remember what it was that Arabs were good at manufacturing and drew a blank.:confused:

haha, I think its textiles. Rugs. Plastics. I think Jordan is big in pharmaceuticals. Thats all that comes to mind right now. At any rate I'm sure they could find something to do.

If al Qaeda was smart they'd try to take over the world not by blowing up cars and people, but by making goods and building factories and educating their women. They could probably do real well.

[skunk]

I was trying to remember what it was that Arabs were good at manufacturing and drew a blank.hahaYou two are priceless. Ho ho ho. Foreign policy with a sense of humour.

[mactastic]

Can't have government-owned companies just starting back up under a Conservative Commander Guy's watch. The Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth would crucify him.

No sir, gotta be free-market all the way. In fact, let's send a few young "loyal Bushies" from some evangelical college program to run the show and by God it'll all be fine. Just another data point showing that you don't need competence to win a war -- you just need to believe hard enough that everything will turn out OK.

[Swarmlord]

You two are priceless. Ho ho ho. Foreign policy with a sense of humour.

And yet other than terror and Islam, you couldn't provide an example of what they export either.:rolleyes:

[mactastic]

And yet other than terror and Islam, you couldn't provide an example of what they export either.:rolleyes:

Ah, but only one of you tried... :rolleyes:

[miloblithe]

Sounds like obeygiant not only tried but identified several major Arab industries accurately. :rolleyes:

The real problem here is the Administration, as far as I understand, refuses to change course on this! I heard on NPR this morning (I think--just had a baby--my mind isn't exactly as sharp as was a few weeks ago) that State/AID refuse to put effort (money) into supporting Iraqi state-owned industries. And that Bremer thinks that his biggest accomplishment in Iraq was instituting a flat tax. They still want it to be a haven of free-market capitalism in the Middle East.

On second though. That probably was his biggest accomplishment.

[zimv20]

regarding the apparently willful confusion on what iraqis or, rather offensively, all arabs produce:

1. wikipedia is your friend
2. obviously iraqis were producing *something* before the war, otherwise there wouldn't be any factories (2nd grade logic there)
3. years of sanctions would result in factories being rundown and needing parts, one needn't resort to racism to explain it

it makes me rather sad that the "arab as bogeyman" propaganda not only took hold, but after the tactics and fear mongering of this administration has been laid so bare, that it's still effective. makes me wonder how gullible some people really are.

[Chef Medeski]

regarding the apparently willful confusion on what iraqis or, rather offensively, all arabs produce:

1. wikipedia is your friend
2. obviously iraqis were producing *something* before the war, otherwise there wouldn't be any factories (2nd grade logic there)
3. years of sanctions would result in factories being rundown and needing parts, one needn't resort to racism to explain it

it makes me rather sad that the "arab as bogeyman" propaganda not only took hold, but after the tactics and fear mongering of this administration has been laid so bare, that it's still effective. makes me wonder how gullible some people really are.
Actually they dont produce much. If you look it up Arabs never be came very industralized and thats one of the major gropes with the region that oil money is never used to diversify the economy, UAE did do that though and Kuwait to an extent. The only factories prior to the 90s were those practically directly funded by Saddam and Oil Money. Saddam ran a very socialistic ball game. He paid for much of the economy. But there is very little in terms of exports of manufactured goods from the Middle-East. Food items, tapestry, garments are pretty much the full of it. And even though the rascists remakrs if any should be dropped, its hard to yell at them for lying or following propaganda. Because clearly it is the truth. For Instance:

Bahrain:

Industries: petroleum processing and refining, aluminum smelting, iron pelletization, fertilizers, offshore banking, insurance, ship repairing, tourism

Exports: petroleum and petroleum products, aluminum, textiles

Mostly petroleum, some banking, repair, and a lot of construction.

Aluminum makes up about 8-11% of exports. 65% is oil. The rest Textile.

Saudi Arabia:

Industries: crude oil production, petroleum refining, basic petrochemicals; ammonia, industrial gases, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), cement, fertilizer, plastics; metals, commercial ship repair, commercial aircraft repair, construction

Exports: petroleum and petroleum products 90%

Once again petroleum dominated. Good amount of repair ad construction. Some basic Industry.

Clearly no major Exports beyond petroleum.

Kuwait:

Industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, cement, shipbuilding and repair, water desalination, food processing, construction materials

Exports: oil and refined products, fertilizers

Same pattern.

Yemen:

Industries: crude oil production and petroleum refining; small-scale production of cotton textiles and leather goods; food processing; handicrafts; small aluminum products factory; cement; commercial ship repair

Exports: crude oil, coffee, dried and salted fish

Wow. Once again ship repair, aluminum, textiles, largely oil and a good amount of construction. A pattern anyone? Lets try to see a "good" middle-eastern country in terms of economic diversity.

UAE:

Industries: petroleum and petrochemicals; fishing, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, commercial ship repair, construction materials, some boat building, handicrafts, textiles

Exports: crude oil 45%, natural gas, reexports, dried fish, dates

Same exact pattern.

As you can see clearly, the trend in the middle-east is to have a oil-dominated economy with strong consturction industries, ship repairing (i wonder why) and almost nothing else. That is the truth. No propaganda.

[zimv20]

Actually they dont produce much. [...]
As you can see clearly, the trend in the middle-east is to have a oil-dominated economy with strong consturction industries, ship repairing (i wonder why) and almost nothing else. That is the truth. No propaganda.

thanks for the list. our conclusions seem to be different, however, on arab countries "not producing much". i assert there is a lot of industry in the M.E.

it's not, as some contend, all "sands and huts".

[Chef Medeski]

thanks for the list. our conclusions seem to be different, however, on arab countries "not producing much". i assert there is a lot of industry in the M.E.

it's not, as some contend, all "sands and huts".

Well Im glad your conclusion is different. If you want to scold people or even tell them what to do with any hope of actually persuading them you should put up a list. Lets see some evidence. They never said "sands and huts". You did!

They said textiles, food, and tapestry. Which is the most of it. Do you have any prove otherwise or do you merely feel good about yourself that you think you are chiding people to do the right thing? Cause I love people who think they are defending the right thing..... merely in their conjectures and conclusion. Personally, I like facts. As I have clearly demonstrated. ;)


I'm sorry I guess I forgot to mention those are all taken directly from the CIA factbook without any editing. So... those are facts.

[zimv20]

They never said "sands and huts". You did!

in this thread, yes, but it's been said by others in the past couple years.

[Peterkro]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the CIA factbook is a reliable source of information.:rolleyes:

[skunk]

I'm sorry I guess I forgot to mention those are all taken directly from the CIA factbook without any editing. So... those are facts.So was the presence of WMD in Iraq. QED.

[Chef Medeski]

So was the presence of WMD in Iraq. QED.
Ok. I could look it up in Wikipedia. It would be the same thing. As if the export products of a nation is really going to be lied about just because its the CIA. Honestly there is a difference between shaky intelligence on WMDs that isnt corooborated and economic products. Is that even a joke? Oh did you hear. The CIA said Nigeria was selling Iraq cake! No not yelllow cake, just regular desserts. Sometimes people are skeptical for the wrong reasons. Come on people, some common sense.

Wiki:

Bahrain:
Exports - commodities: petroleum and petroleum products 61%, aluminum 7%

Saudi:
Industries: crude oil production, petroleum refining, basic petrochemicals, ammonia, industrial gases, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), cement, construction, fertilizer, plastics, commercial ship repair, commercial aircraft repair

Exports: petroleum and petroleum products

Hmmm... corroborated evidence. I dont suppose that gives a claim more validity.

[skunk]

Sorry, I can't help it: the phrase "CIA Factbook" just sounds so much like an oxymoron these days.

[Chef Medeski]

Sorry, I can't help it: the phrase "CIA Factbook" just sounds so much like an oxymoron these days.
The CIA didnt do half bad during the Iraq War. They persuaded Bush to turn down much of his rhetoric cause they couldnt corroborate it. The then CIA director in his memoirs noted how he was intense pressure form the administration to come up with evidence proving a case against Iraq. And really couldnt find much. THen they were told to find anything, mere scraps. And they said heres scraps, but we dont support any of them as legit. The administration took it and ran. Actually Colin Powell's speech at the UN was supposed to be a lot more hard hitting, but the CIA protested saying they couldnt back most of that stuff at all let alone on trumped up claims. So they said they wouldnt back the speech and thus Colin wouldnt be allowed to say CIA in the speech. But the administration put so much intense pressure that finally they came to middle-ground. They toned down the speech and half-heartedly approved it.

[Peterkro]

Have you ever considered why these countries aren't industrialised (leaving aside for the moment the broader question of whether industrialisation is a good thing).A quick read of the areas history especially as regards colonialism may well prove beneficial.The CIA and it's expertise at psych-ops (a term that only the US military would invent mangling of the English language at it's finest),which the well know Fact-book is,sure a lot of it's figures are in the right ball park its the political slant that is insidious.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I was trying to remember what it was that Arabs were good at manufacturing and drew a blank.:confused:

You'd think with all that sand they'd be able to turn out some killer glasswork. :D

On a more serious note, provided I remember my AP European History from in high school at least halfway accurately, one of the reasons the ME didn't develop industrially the way the West did was that they never really needed to. Geographically, they occupied the sweet spot between the trade flowing east out of Europe et al and the trade flowing west from Asia.

[Chef Medeski]

Have you ever considered why these countries aren't industrialised (leaving aside for the moment the broader question of whether industrialisation is a good thing).A quick read of the areas history especially as regards colonialism may well prove beneficial.The CIA and it's expertise at psych-ops (a term that only the US military would invent mangling of the English language at it's finest),which the well know Fact-book is,sure a lot of it's figures are in the right ball park its the political slant that is insidious.
Ummm... not sure who this is pointed towards, but I'll take it. Yup, I know why. Cause much of the colonizing powers, US, Britain, and France, or their dangerously close roles after colonization officially ended tried to not emphazie industralization. In many parts they wanted to merely reap the oil while having the people of those countries pay them for all the little manufactured bits from oil expertise to regular old tupperware. (actually Iran imports oil overall because they dont have enough refineries in their country due mainly to the British and the US always wanting to have a hand in the refinerey bit of its production line).

So the main reaons behinds the non-inudstralization of this area is mostly due to the pressure Western forces excerted on them to not diversify their economies. Of course its a bit naive to put all the blame on them. Their is little will or impetus to carry out the reforms either way partly due to the almost scared view many Arabs have of using Western technology (they arent afraid they just are disgusting in following int heir footsteps). While the far east is more than happy and loves to follow in the US's footsteps down to the churning out billions of tons of CO2. ;)

Plus for the past two decades little effort has been made by the ruling class beyound really a portion of the ruling class in Saudi Arabia, full-heartedly in UAE, and sort of slantitly in Iran, to push economic reforms and industrialization. In the UAE half the reason they aren't pushing it full steam is they lack the human expertise in terms of educated individuals. Their education system is rather shoddy and somewhat like Saudi Arabia's focuses less on Science and Math and the little bits to make a machine work creating individuals ill-suited to help in these fields. Iran sort of has the opposite problem. They have the educated talent, they just seem to have a hard time diversifying with so little trade activity outside of oil. (but its improving, Iran is the new site of a Renault manufacturing plant! The french really do have a very different sort of relationship than Anglo-saxon colonizers. But anyways....) Its somewhat bleak. And the blame could be spread around. But that still doesnt change the fact that industry is weak in the Middle-East and the only people who can change that are the people of the Middle-East by setting aside blame and working towards the goal of developing their economy. They should take a cue from Chinese boys who will do anything to work for Intel.

[miloblithe]

Chef Medeski, one major flaw in your methodology is that you are looking at exports. They manufacture plenty of things for their domestics markets that they don't export. Also, there are plenty of manufactures that aren't considered significant enough to make those very general lists. Look up the USA on the same list and see how many things aren't mentioned.

Examples:

Egyptian cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_(car_company)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American_Vehicles

[Peterkro]

Chef you seem to be agreeing it's the ruling class who have help back the countries in question and I'm guessing also agreeing about who armed and placed them in power.The way the area will be able to improve it's living conditions is for the people to rid themselves of the twin yokes of government and religion (aint going to happen in my lifetime).However in the short term seizing control of their own resources would make things easier and provide a economic buffer for development (not necessarily industrial).The major problem is the most powerful forces in the world are extracting oil to bolster their own ruling classes and are fully prepared to defend their interests at whatever cost,the lives of their own country people not the least of them.So in the long term the interests of the ordinary people of the Middle East and the West are the same,unfortunately as yet those people cannot see that.Incidently I've spent some time in Iran and most people I meet were resourceful,intelligent and open to new ideas not something I can say about most of the western countries I've lived in.

[Peterkro]

Chef Medeski, one major flaw in your methodology is that you are looking at exports. They manufacture plenty of things for their domestics markets that they don't export. Also, there are plenty of manufactures that aren't considered significant enough to make those very general lists. Look up the USA on the same list and see how many things aren't mentioned.

Examples:

Egyptian cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_(car_company)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American_Vehicles

Paykan cars were produced in Iran from the late sixties until 2005 and provided around 40% of cars.It was based on the Hillman Hunter made by Chrysler in the UK. As I said in another post the people of the Middle East have great skill at producing things with the very minimum of resources.

[Chef Medeski]

Chef you seem to be agreeing it's the ruling class who have help back the countries in question and I'm guessing also agreeing about who armed and placed them in power.The way the area will be able to improve it's living conditions is for the people to rid themselves of the twin yokes of government and religion (aint going to happen in my lifetime).However in the short term seizing control of their own resources would make things easier and provide a economic buffer for development (not necessarily industrial).The major problem is the most powerful forces in the world are extracting oil to bolster their own ruling classes and are fully prepared to defend their interests at whatever cost,the lives of their own country people not the least of them.So in the long term the interests of the ordinary people of the Middle East and the West are the same,unfortunately as yet those people cannot see that.Incidently I've spent some time in Iran and most people I meet were resourceful,intelligent and open to new ideas not something I can say about most of the western countries I've lived in.

Um... well I dont quite agree on everything. I dont quite understand what bad yokes of gov't or religion. Gov't can be quite helpful in moderation, let they say.... And I don't believe Religion is bad thing at all. I may seem Islam as slightly antiquated and not best applicated for the currenty job of religion in the area, but I dont think one should throw away religion all together. And yes most of the ruling class was put to power by the West, except for Iran of course. Its sort of a unique case of a true people's revolution. Where clearly the interests of the gov't and the West are not that same. Im not exactly sure where you are getting at though. Not to be offensive or anyting, but you are advocating an aethic, anarcist revolution (basically the goal of marxist communism until it gets derided anytime)? Me, myself, I'm a minarcist so I seem to agree on many accounts. But Im not exactly sure what you are advocating in this situation.

Oh and I must agree on one point, Iranian people are wonderful, intelligent, resourceful people. They are absolutely the best! :p I happen to be one. ;)

[Chef Medeski]

Paykan cars were produced in Iran from the late sixties until 2005 and provided around 40% of cars.It was based on the Hillman Hunter made by Chrysler in the UK. As I said in another post the people of the Middle East have great skill at producing things with the very minimum of resources.
Paykans are **** buckets. That car was behind the time in the 60s and the fact that they still use and and were only producing it shortly ago proves only how bad the situation is, not good.


Oh but good joke. They are so good to producing stuff with the very min. because they are used to embargoes!

[miloblithe]

True enough, although (not that I don't think you know this) Iran isn't an Arab nation (although both Arabs and Middle East" have been mentioned here). No one in their right mind would say Iran has no industry.

And more importantly, for the purposes of this thread, the issue is percentage of workforce in industry. We're talking about jobs. That's the point of the criticism of the US policy.

[Chef Medeski]

True enough, although (not that I don't think you know this) Iran isn't an Arab nation (although both Arabs and Middle East" have been mentioned here). No one in their right mind would say Iran has no industry.

And more importantly, for the purposes of this thread, the issue is percentage of workforce in industry. We're talking about jobs. That's the point of the criticism of the US policy.

Good points. Something to keep in mind when posting further.

[Peterkro]

Paykans are **** buckets. That car was behind the time in the 60s and the fact that they still use and and were only producing it shortly ago proves only how bad the situation is, not good.


Oh but good joke. They are so good to producing stuff with the very min. because they are used to embargoes!

Sure they're as you so eloquently say ****buckets although they seem to have served their purpose for 35 years.Having the most powerful nation in the world trying to break them has certainly helped their inventiveness (see also Cuba).When I was there the US was training their military,arming them and trying to flog them Nuclear technology,how times have changed.It's interesting to see the actions of the Seven sisters and the CIA/MI6 come back to haunt them.

[Peterkro]

Um... well I dont quite agree on everything. I dont quite understand what bad yokes of gov't or religion. Gov't can be quite helpful in moderation, let they say.... And I don't believe Religion is bad thing at all. I may seem Islam as slightly antiquated and not best applicated for the currenty job of religion in the area, but I dont think one should throw away religion all together. And yes most of the ruling class was put to power by the West, except for Iran of course. Its sort of a unique case of a true people's revolution. Where clearly the interests of the gov't and the West are not that same. Im not exactly sure where you are getting at though. Not to be offensive or anyting, but you are advocating an aethic, anarcist revolution (basically the goal of marxist communism until it gets derided anytime)? Me, myself, I'm a minarcist so I seem to agree on many accounts. But Im not exactly sure what you are advocating in this situation.

Oh and I must agree on one point, Iranian people are wonderful, intelligent, resourceful people. They are absolutely the best! :p I happen to be one. ;)
Although I am a Anarchist I'm not advocating anything but commenting on what has happened in the Middle East,as a Iranian I'm sure your familiar with your birth place's history and how the actions of the West in 1953 led directly to the Islamic revolution.I can't see the shading you apparently can between the 57 varieties of religion and I'm afraid I don't see any redeeming features in government at all.

Incidentally the differences between what you would call communism i.e. state capitalism and Anarchism/Communism are huge and those of my ilk have a lot more reason to hate them than capitalists.Marx was essentially a economist and probably would have nothing to do with those that call themselves Marxists.

[Chef Medeski]

Although I am a Anarchist I'm not advocating anything but commenting on what has happened in the Middle East,as a Iranian I'm sure your familiar with your birth place's history and how the actions of the West in 1953 led directly to the Islamic revolution.I can't see the shading you apparently can between the 57 varieties of religion and I'm afraid I don't see any redeeming features in government at all.

Incidentally the differences between what you would call communism i.e. state capitalism and Anarchism/Communism are huge and those of my ilk have a lot more reason to hate them than capitalists.Marx was essentially a economist and probably would have nothing to do with those that call themselves Marxists.
Oh yeah I hate what happened to Mossadeq. Its a real shame. TRAVESTY. Like its huge. And the funny thing is no one in the US knows about it. They know the Islamic revolution. But they dont that on the minds of half of the people during revolution was the injustice the US or "the shah" if you really think the US didnt do much did to mossadegh. Well.... I think pretty much all religions are outdated and not well-suited to the modern world since they dont take into effect the scientific movement or revolution. And you know I really feel thats a pity since thats the new world order, and you cant beleive anything fundamentally which atleast having it co-exist with science. But of course religion is a very good societal balancer in the form or small scale, personal religion. I think it helps people make better decisinos that ultimately makes for a better society.

And the communism I was reffering to was Anarch-communism. I read the COmmunist Manifesto I realize he really basically advocated Anarchy. Thats why I tried to seperate it by saying marxist communism but your right that it has a distorted perception from what it actually stands for. And I used to be an anarchist (first was a communist, read the manifesto. Current communism is more fascium than true communism which is anarchy.) So I became an anarchist. But I have it hard to find that the world would be perfect if the gov't had no say. I just think there needs to be ways to keep the powerful like in the case of Stalin, Hitler, or Bush from rising up. Thats why I'm a minarchist Libertarian now. But of course like everythign thats under constant review (right now im kinda interested in the communal effects of "simplistic" hunter gatherer society through anthropology. Very fascinating to see for instance how one Tribe in South Africa has sort of adopted capilism and is doing quite well for itself through it. Its quite interesting and sort of like a way to say how community work could help diffuse a lot of bad effects of capitlism).

So yeah... you know its sad what happened in Iran. But I only want to get over it and look to the future. Yelling at the US isn't going to help anyone, they will merely just spin thier wheels in the mud.

[pseudobrit]

I was trying to remember what it was that Arabs were good at manufacturing and drew a blank.:confused:

You're a racist. Yeah, you. Get this **** out of here.

[obeygiant]

Sounds like obeygiant not only tried but identified several major Arab industries accurately. :rolleyes:


Did you think I was kidding? :confused:

If things would stop blowing up in Baghdad, they might be able to sustain a power plant then at least turn on some industry and get the Iraqis working. If the people are busy and have some cash flow, I think the terrorists there would loose their footing.

[miloblithe]

Did you think I was kidding? :confused:

If things would stop blowing up in Baghdad, they might be able to sustain a power plant then at least turn on some industry and get the Iraqis working. If the people are busy and have some cash flow, I think the terrorists there would loose their footing.

No, I didn't think you were kidding at all. That's why I was trying to defend you. I thought others were criticizing you unfairly.

[obeygiant]

No, I didn't think you were kidding at all. That's why I was trying to defend you. I thought others were criticizing you unfairly.

Well thank you. :)

And the communism I was reffering to was Anarch-communism.

What is anarch-communism?

[Chef Medeski]

Well thank you. :)



What is anarch-communism?

The true communism that Marx wrote about where after the proleteriat revolution and making all industries owned by the people. Eventually all ownership would transcend and thus gov't would be unneccessary :rolleyes: (yes about idealistic). In this case the proleteriat would become independent of any formal gov't and everyone would love in harmony because not only had you destroyed the gov't but the top class, who owned all the industries (of course in Marx's century it was a lot closer to being the same thing).

But anyways its the basically ideal that gov't and capitialism would be destroyed in the end. That was the communist dream as stated by Marx. So anarch-communism is the true pure iteration of communism un murdled by Cold War Propoaganda, Staliinism, and state-run industry.

Basically in the end communists want the same thing as anarchists. They just had a formal plan to achieve it.

[solvs]

I thought others were criticizing you unfairly.
Force of habit I guess. :p

But that is true. If they have jobs and working utilities, without people trying to blow them up all the time, they wouldn't be as pissed off. Same with anywhere really. If you look at any poorer country, or even areas right here, you see something pretty similar. Part of why Saddam was somewhat popular in that dept when he took care of his citizens. Not so much in the areas he didn't. One can look at Kim Jong or Hitler in the same way. Or Bin Laden. Had we provided a better infrastructure, things would have turned out better for all of us.

But the reason some of those countries don't bother with anything else is that they have oil. Why would they want to bother with anything more than some textiles here and there? Dubai sees the writing on the wall, and is investing some of that oil money towards the future. Would be nice if the rest follow suit. Maybe if we stop invading them and blowing them up, they will.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is back to mass exporting opium, which isn't exactly a step in the right direction.

[Peterkro]

The true communism that Marx wrote about where after the proleteriat revolution and making all industries owned by the people. Eventually all ownership would transcend and thus gov't would be unneccessary :rolleyes: (yes about idealistic). In this case the proleteriat would become independent of any formal gov't and everyone would love in harmony because not only had you destroyed the gov't but the top class, who owned all the industries (of course in Marx's century it was a lot closer to being the same thing).

But anyways its the basically ideal that gov't and capitialism would be destroyed in the end. That was the communist dream as stated by Marx. So anarch-communism is the true pure iteration of communism un murdled by Cold War Propoaganda, Staliinism, and state-run industry.

Basically in the end communists want the same thing as anarchists. They just had a formal plan to achieve it.

You've got the details right although your wrong about every one living in harmony (or loving in harmony same thing :) ) and it's not idealistic it's very practical.What we want is a Social Revolution not a Political one.With a Social Revolution people will ignore government and it will wither away.I don't think anyone thinks it will be perfect or even how it would pan out but large numbers of people around the world have working examples.As far as government is concerned it can ***** right off.

[takao]

this is ridiculous ... so because of their own fantasy "free market wonderland" they let go away hundred thousands jobs just because the were state owned

seriously what were they thinking ?


in austria the state owned industries had been the anchor of the economy after the war and proved to be essential in the after war economy (the industry wasn't state owned before)

and in iraq with a state owned industry already in place the let it run bust and destroy hundred thousand jobs ? because it didn't fit their idea of a free market ?
this isn't "incompetent" anymore, that is already _beyond_ "stupid"

[takao]

and after the jobs are gone through _their idiocy_ they state that it would cost hundreds of millions to create them ? if that doesn't justifiy a "master of the obvious" award i don't know what

so with investing a few hundred millions they could have saved half a million jobs in iraq for years and thus very likely make a lot mroe people happier and less likely to join the insurgency and they complain it's too much money while at the same time the US army spends as much money very likely in 1 day before lunch ?

why didn't they simply take control of the industries and privatized later when everything stable ? after all that worked _before_

[Swarmlord]

You're a racist. Yeah, you. Get this **** out of here.

Look up the definition before you accuse someone of something. Either discuss what they are capable of producing and exporting or get the heck out yourself. The Middle East used to be an exporter of technology, mathematics, and knowledge. They are a shadow of their former selves and that's indisputable. Get over it.

[skunk]

why didn't they simply take control of the industries and privatized later when everything stable ? after all that worked _before_That would have been too much like admitting that for all his faults, Saddam Hussein was managing to hold Iraq together as a functioning state. Despite the years of UN sanctions, inability to sell oil, constant overflights and bombing, constant efforts by Washington to destabilise his country, he was actually running a very tight ship, with a more efficient infrastructure, industry, markets, civil order and healthcare than the "Coalition" can manage even now, after pouring billions upon billions of dollars into it. Amazing, isn't it? If George Bush could run a country half as well as Saddam Hussein, the US wouldn't be half way down the drain by now.

[Chef Medeski]

You've got the details right although your wrong about every one living in harmony (or loving in harmony same thing :) ) and it's not idealistic it's very practical.What we want is a Social Revolution not a Political one.With a Social Revolution people will ignore government and it will wither away.I don't think anyone thinks it will be perfect or even how it would pan out but large numbers of people around the world have working examples.As far as government is concerned it can ***** right off.

No I realize Anarchy is a social revolution, but the "ideal" communism that leads to anarcy is more political. Thats the major distinction even though they both end in the same thing theoretically.

Well a big thing that has held millions of people around the world in civil union without gov't has been a strong sense of community such as traditional hunter,gatherer and farming societies. I think in the current state the world would not be able to really adapt to harmonious living without gov't because there is little social regulation outside of the gov't. Until we are able to reinstate more stringent moral and social obligations I dont think its going to work. And capitiliasm has sort of eroded away the communal approach. So...

Thats the only reason I dont advocate the complete dissolution of gov't. Because really its a great end goal, I just feel we can't realistically achieve it by just wiping out gov't. I think its much more realistic to downsize gov't first. Then change the role of gov't to be much less posessive in our lives. And then finally the time will come where people say gov't.... its nothing. And it will dissolve away.

[Swarmlord]

That would have been too much like admitting that for all his faults, Saddam Hussein was managing to hold Iraq together as a functioning state. Despite the years of UN sanctions, inability to sell oil, constant overflights and bombing, constant efforts by Washington to destabilise his country, he was actually running a very tight ship, with a more efficient infrastructure, industry, markets, civil order and healthcare than the "Coalition" can manage even now, after pouring billions upon billions of dollars into it. Amazing, isn't it? If George Bush could run a country half as well as Saddam Hussein, the US wouldn't be half way down the drain by now.

This comment explains a lot. I didn't realize that your complaint with the current administration was that our President wasn't enough like Saddam. Thanks for clearing it up.

[skunk]

This comment explains a lot. I didn't realize that your complaint with the current administration was that our President wasn't enough like Saddam. Thanks for clearing it up.In terms of criminality, there isn't much to choose between them, but in terms of administrative ability, Saddam wins hands down. Hadn't you noticed? Or are you too obsessed with raking over the petty misdeeds of the Clinton administration to spot the obvious and catastrophic weakness of George Bush?

[Swarmlord]

In terms of criminality, there isn't much to choose between them, but in terms of administrative ability, Saddam wins hands down. Hadn't you noticed? Or are you too obsessed with raking over the petty misdeeds of the Clinton administration to spot the obvious and catastrophic weakness of George Bush?

Perhaps Bush could better administer the country if he employed a wood chipper for motivation? You'd know whether he liked you or not depending on whether you were fed in head first or feet first.

[skunk]

Perhaps Bush could better administer the country if he employed a wood chipper for motivation?Somehow I think it's less to do with accessories than with innate ability.

[Ugg]

this is ridiculous ... so because of their own fantasy "free market wonderland" they let go away hundred thousands jobs just because the were state owned

seriously what were they thinking ?


in austria the state owned industries had been the anchor of the economy after the war and proved to be essential in the after war economy (the industry wasn't state owned before)

and in iraq with a state owned industry already in place the let it run bust and destroy hundred thousand jobs ? because it didn't fit their idea of a free market ?
this isn't "incompetent" anymore, that is already _beyond_ "stupid"

It just underlines the fact that the US and specifically gw (degree in History at Yale) bushco has absolutely no interest in studying history. Any yahoo could have told him that The Treaty of Versailles was a major contributory factor to WWII. And, that the Marshall Plan and continued support of government owned industry after WWII is what kept the peace in the aftermath of the war.

Bremer was an ass and will be remembered as the most incompetent of bushco's coterie. Too bad the Iraqis have had to pay such a huge price for American Imperialism.

[skunk]

Bremer was an ass and will be remembered as the most incompetent of bushco's coterie.You could tell he was an ass by looking at his footwear. I mean, what kind of twat wears desert boots with a grey suit?

74367

[Chef Medeski]

Perhaps Bush could better administer the country if he employed a wood chipper for motivation? You'd know whether he liked you or not depending on whether you were fed in head first or feet first.

Well Reagan and Bush I didnt seem to want to step in to stop Saddam from using Chemical weapons when they had clear oppurtunities to. Now is there a problem with complacency....

[Chef Medeski]

You could tell he was an ass by looking at his footwear. I mean, what kind of twat wears desert boots with a grey suit?

74367

I guess its the same guy who picked the strapped Kevlar vest:
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/CP_stories/42/42783.jpg


As opposed to the buttoned down one.

[SMM]

The CIA didnt do half bad during the Iraq War. They persuaded Bush to turn down much of his rhetoric cause they couldnt corroborate it. The then CIA director in his memoirs noted how he was intense pressure form the administration to come up with evidence proving a case against Iraq. And really couldnt find much. THen they were told to find anything, mere scraps. And they said heres scraps, but we dont support any of them as legit. The administration took it and ran. Actually Colin Powell's speech at the UN was supposed to be a lot more hard hitting, but the CIA protested saying they couldnt back most of that stuff at all let alone on trumped up claims. So they said they wouldnt back the speech and thus Colin wouldnt be allowed to say CIA in the speech. But the administration put so much intense pressure that finally they came to middle-ground. They toned down the speech and half-heartedly approved it.

Did you watch Bill Moyer's Journal, "The Buying of the War"? He discusses this in pretty good detail, with some of the investigative reporters, who actually got the story right. I thought it was an excellent program. Anyone can watch it again (I have actually seen it 4 times, as I like to get my facts straight). Just go to www.pbs.org and drill down a bit. Easy to find, and very good reporting.

[Chef Medeski]

Did you watch Bill Moyer's Journal, "The Buying of the War"? He discusses this in pretty good detail, with some of the investigative reporters, who actually got the story right. I thought it was an excellent program. Anyone can watch it again (I have actually seen it 4 times, as I like to get my facts straight). Just go to www.pbs.org and drill down a bit. Easy to find, and very good reporting.

No I actually havent. I'll take a look at that once summer starts.

[solvs]

This comment explains a lot. I didn't realize that your complaint with the current administration was that our President wasn't enough like Saddam. Thanks for clearing it up.

Once again, you've completely missed the point. That was a dig at the Bush administration's inadequacies. Not a complement of Saddam. In other words, if Saddam could do it with what little he had, it's amazing we can't do it with all we have.