Reply to: Word on the Arab Street

[Stan]

The majority of people in Iraq at every opportunity turn up to vote. What is last time -70% turnout for the referundum?

Down from 99%

As the article says the people in Iraq, despite daily attacks, are not demonstrating for the "invaders" to leave.

"the people in iraq" were protesting but I think being shot by troops for protesting made them much less keen to do so.

[SupremeSpod]

Democracy? What the feck is that when it's at 'ome then?

[DodgyAgent]

A few points ALM, to make the world go round China needs access to American markets. It may compete more aggressively for Oil by coercing Iran/Iraq accordingly but I do not think that this is a bad thing. You guys should know that as mankind moves forward it it is highly likely that the world will at some stage in the next 50 years cease to depend upon oil.

The point is that Iran will be part of the economic loop, and in so doing will depend upon economic prosperity of others. If it chooses to use its oil to gain political influence then fine. What it wont be able to do (because power is not the hands of one person or one family) is enjoy a market economy and impoverish its people.

The anti Western rhetoric comes from Iranian leaders not its people. Its people aspire to economic prosperity and access to western consumer goods.

yes Iran has a long way to go but the pressure upon its leaders is immense, as unlike Iraq and Saudi, it has a large number of well educated aspiring people to maintain the momentum towards democracy.

[ALM]

Some interesting points you raise DA. However, I have to disagree with your suggestion that a strong Iran which controls its neigbour Iraq is a good thing for the world.

If it pursues a path towards fundamentalism and aggressive anti western policies it will end up alienating its main supporter-the chinese (who in turn are now reliant, thanks to their booming market economy on a positive relationship with the west). So Iran cannot afford to self destruct in this way.

Quite the opposite IMO. The existence of China, a member of the UN Security Council, as a new geopolitical force will, if anything allow, Iran to pursue a more aggressive stance against with the West. It is China which is heavily dependant on Iran for it's energy needs. Indeed, without Iranian oil China's economic growth will be seriously stifled and rest assured they will do everything they can to safeguard this supply. Given that the West is no longer the hand which feeds the Iranians and the fact that they have China's protection at the UN, Iran may well take an ever more belligerent attitude to the West.

The Iranians are relatively free and as such can have no real beef against the West (if anything they like the West because it proveides the computers, tellys music etc that they like). The Saudis have no such freedom or power and they hate the west because the West supports its regime.

You've got to be kidding DA! The Iranians have a deep rooted hatred for the West … and arguably well founded too. Do you not remember the Iranian Revolution, the way in which the Shah of Iran was hurled out of the country and the decades of US-Iranian hostility that ensued? How about the decade long Iran-Iraq waged by Saddam on behalf of the West? It resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. They may aspire to our quality of life but this in no way diminishes their deep mistrust and hatred of the 'Great Satan'.

In my view if Iran wants to control Iraq then let it.

Perhaps we should. However, be clear about the result of doing so. Iran, with Iraqs oil, will control the largest oil reserves on the planet and will become a seriously powerful theocratic Islamic regime.

IMO the history books will look back on the Iraq war as an unmitigated disaster on so mamy levels.

[DodgyAgent]

iran

Dodgy, what does handing over Iraq to effective Iranian control achieve? What has the Iraq war achieved in general?

OK let us assume that Iran ends up in control of Iraq (and whatever you say it is an assumption), in my view this is not necessarily a bad thing. To begin with Iraq will become their can of worms. Secondly Iran has a huge population of young well educated and relatively free people. Since the comments of their prime minister suggesting that Israel should be wiped of the face of the earth huge amounts of capital have flown from the country, and the economy has suffered.

Iran has the beginnings of a market economy, it has better educated and more sophisticated people than say India does. If it pursues a path towards fundamentalism and aggressive anti western policies it will end up alienating its main supporter-the chinese (who in turn are now reliant, thanks to their booming market economy on a positive relationship with the west). So Iran cannot afford to self destruct in this way.

In my view if Iran wants to control Iraq then let it. As I have long argued world peace can only be achieved through capitalism and trade, through interdependency between sovereign states. Iraq under Saddam would never play by such rules because the dictator not only had total control of his people, but he also had oil, which removed any need for him to be dependent on outsiders.

Alf P argues that Saudi should be on the list of countries to be invaded. He has a point as it is effectively a totalitarian dictatorship, which Iran is not. The Iranians are relatively free and as such can have no real beef against the West (if anything they like the West because it proveides the computers, tellys music etc that they like). The Saudis have no such freedom or power and they hate the west because the West supports its regime. These arguments are probably what explains the popular support that the Iraqis show to the West in Mark Steyns column.

[Chico]

The majority of people in Iraq at every opportunity turn up to vote. What is last time -70% turnout for the referundum? As the article says the people in Iraq, despite daily attacks, are not demonstrating for the "invaders" to leave. Its the lefty pinko brigade who are fighting Al Qaeda's propaganda battle for them. Thankfully the lefty namby pamby brigade are just toothless and loud with no influence in Iraq, US,UK or Oz.

[Not So Wise]

Err Chico why you posting this? According to your constant crap here all muslims are evil, all muslims want to take over the world ,all muslims either want non muslims to convert or die. How does muslims protesting against al-Qa'eda support this theory?

Post 9/11 the whole world believed Saddam was acquiring WMD.

9/11 had nothing to do with that. That was the Bush and Blair propoganda machine.
9/11 was done by al-Qa'eda. Who were backed by the fundamentalist extremists Taliban in Afganistan.
Saddamn violently repressed fundamentalists in Iraq and was considered an enemy by all other fundamentalists because of this.

The only thing the two groups had in common was hatred of USA but this did not allow them to cooperate because the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" not "My enemy, who is also enemy of my other enemy is my friend"

It's actually quite funny, if SH had not invaded Kuwait in the 90's Iraq would probably be at this very moment considered the wests best ally after Israel in the middle east.

Bush and Bliar used the ignorance (one rag head is the same as any other rag head to most westeners) and fear created by 9/11 to forward their own aims to invade iraq. 9/11 was the poor excuse, not the reason. The two are totally different animals.

And lets not forget, there were no WMD's. The rumors about them are about as substancial as the rumors that i heard about you really being Garry Glitter.

So what should the US have done put their national interests in the hands of corrupt French and Russian "fingers in the oil barrels" self serving criminals

*notes you ignore the many US companies getting named as also being involved* And the hundreds billions being made by US companies now (most with links to bush, bush family and his adminstrations while the left overs get tossed to the british

That is your assumption.

No real assumption in it.

The majority of Iraq's population have more in common with Iran than anyone else in the world. The growing hatred over there of the west caused by either direct actions american/british actions occupation forces and/or their inability to stablise the country and lack of any strong leader emerging from the iraqi population is practically forceing them into the iranian arms. Why do you think the US is now beating the war drums again? because after 2 years they have finally realised what anyone with half a brain and some knowladge of the people and history of the two countrys knew 2 years ago.

[sasguru]

It is not my assumption. Do some research.

What do you think the Iraq war has achieved or will achieve?

[DodgyAgent]

what does handing over Iraq to effective Iranian control achieve? What has the Iraq war achieved in general?

That is your assumption.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? Post 9/11 the whole world believed Saddam was acquiring WMD

Untrue , and the best people to know would have been the UN Nuclear Inspectorate whose claims that Iraq had no WMDs were confirmed.

But that did not matter as according to Mr Blair there was no time left for such considerations.

BTW Chico you seem to be avoiding any criticism of the vile regieme in Saudia Arabia , why is that ?

PS DA as you probably aware Mr Black has more pressing concerns than discussing the politics of the press for the moment ....

[AlfredJPruffock]

Whether you agree with Mark Steyn (and I do) or not he is a brilliant writer.
What he says is true. If Alf cannot come to terms with the concept of cause and effect (convenient for the guilt ridden anti war brigade) then I would suggest that had 9/11 not happened then the US would not have invaded Iraq.

DA

Well there are others who disagree that the invasion of Iraq would have happened sans 9 11, for example from todays Independent ... and even the CIA confimned there was no linakge between Iraq and Al Queda etc, given Saddams secular regeime perhaps this is not totally surprising.

PS for what is worth I was for a War for regeime change against Saudi Arabia not Iraq.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.

[sasguru]

Whether you agree with Mark Steyn (and I do) or not he is a brilliant writer.
What he says is true. If Alf cannot come to terms with the concept of cause and effect (convenient for the guilt ridden anti war brigade) then I would suggest that had 9/11 not happened then the US would not have invaded Iraq.

Dodgy, what does handing over Iraq to effective Iranian control achieve? What has the Iraq war achieved in general?

[DodgyAgent]

The ex editor of the Telegraph was on Newnight last night. He reckon he'd rather read the Guardian now than the "American Neo con propaganda sheet the Telegraph has become under Black".

Then give an example (and Black no longer owns the Telegraph anyway)

[DodgyAgent]

Mark Steyn

Whether you agree with Mark Steyn (and I do) or not he is a brilliant writer.
What he says is true. If Alf cannot come to terms with the concept of cause and effect (convenient for the guilt ridden anti war brigade) then I would suggest that had 9/11 not happened then the US would not have invaded Iraq.

[Bagpuss]

The ex editor of the Telegraph was on Newnight last night. He reckon he'd rather read the Guardian now than the "American Neo con propaganda sheet the Telegraph has become under Black".