O
il. The libs may have been so wrong about it that it will make their heads spin like in Regan in The Exorcist. Oil might bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
New Development Brings Hope for Iraq
Paz, one of my bright liberal commenters, will accuse me today of changing my mind again about Iraq, and he may be right this time. In fact, I might be doing one of those cartoon-like double takes because I saw something today in the New York Times, my favorite (not!) balanced (not!) newspaper that, if true, would vindicate the Stay the Coursers on Iraq and put to shame the Cut and Runners.
Iraqis Near Deal on Distribution of Oil Revenues by Population - New York Times By EDWARD WONG, Published: December 9, 2006
BAGHDAD. Iraqi officials are near agreement on a national oil law that would give the central government the power to distribute current and future oil revenues to the provinces or regions, based on their population, Iraqi and American officials say.
If enacted, the measure, drafted by a committee of politicians and ministers, could help resolve a highly divisive issue that has consistently blocked efforts to reconcile the country's feuding ethnic and sectarian factions. Sunni Arabs, who lead the insurgency, have opposed the idea of regional autonomy for fear that they would be deprived of a fair share of the country's oil wealth, which is concentrated in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. The Iraq Study Group report stressed that an oil law guaranteeing an equitable distribution of revenues was crucial to the process of national reconciliation, and thus to ending the war.
If this report is true, then this is a stunning behind the scenes development that could bring about Bush's vision of a united Iraq
with a fairly strong federal government, but with three regional states that guard the interests of the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. At stake are the fourth largest oil reserves in the world, one of the reasons why the whole world is interested in what happens in the Iraq war.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Oil for Peace
If you notice this New York Times article, my Dear libs, the United States will not be sharing in the largess from the oil. The oil will be divided between the three Iraqi regions. Read the article to get the details. Yes, of course, American oil companies will get a large portion of the oil contracts for construction and handling of the oil, but this is entirely appropriate, since America paid for this right with its blood. Why should French or Russian companies get anything?
Anyway, the effect of this agreement, if it should happen (and it looks like it will) will mean that the Iraqis will then have a monetary motivation for peace. In order to make money from splitting the oil revenues in three, the new states would benefit from an orderly environment, or no new investment would be forthcoming. This is great news.
It still does not mean that outside forces, like Iran, will not try to get their share of the oil and power, but at least some internal forces in Iraq will be aligned for peace instead of for war. The oil agreement will also not decrease some of the sectarian hatred in Iraq. The Sunnis will still hate the Shias will hate the Kurds, and so on; but they will all be smiling more, because their lives will start to change for the better. They will be able to rebuild their country again, if they choose to do so, and then benefit even more from the oil revenues.
Implications
What does this mean for the U.S., and for Bush? This is major, and the first ray of hope I've seen there in years. This means that democracy does have a chance in Iraq. This means that it might be possible after all to form a strong-enough federal government there. This also means that I possibly have been wrong lately in my pessimism about Iraq, as have 70% of Americans, and that Bush was the smart guy in the room.
I will make a bold prediction. Most of the world, including the New York Times, who wrote the article, and especially the liberals, will under-report this new development, and miss the implications of it for the future of Iraq. Liberals will never admit that democracy could work in Iraq. It's against their religion.
So, go ahead Paz, make my day, tell me I've changed my mind again. I'm glad to do it, in the interest of truth, as always. I'm excited to do it in this case. Tell me you understand the implications of this development, and that you're glad that democracy might come to Iraq—and that Bush was right all along. Sorry, forgot, it's against your religion.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)
click to hide most of this post
7 comments:
Rock, havne't caught the story yet, but I'll try to find it. Since my first trip to Afghanistan I have been saying that Iraq was a short term investment for democracy because they have at least an infrastructure to build upon and they will have the revenue from the oil in the country. I also believe that Afghanistan will be our generations Germany or Korea, and it will be the long rebuilding we saw in both countries, but look at them now, and Japan too. 'Stay the Course' or is that slogan gone now?
Rock, you underestimate me! I think you're confusing my opposition to the war with what you percieve as a lack of a personal hope for a viable solution to this mess. I HOPE that innocent people stop dying in the streets of Baghdad, I HOPE the troops stop getting killed/maimed and are brought home sooner than later, I WISH these young American men and women were never in this mess to begin with.
I've never accused you of being a "flip flopper" on the Iraq issue at all. You've remained steadfast in your support of it and it's changing "rationale(s)". The thing I have called you out on is the fact that you consistently disagreed with the Dems' assessments on the war strategy (lack of troops, no viable plan, huge tactical errors, lack of real leadership from the top) calling them "anti American demagogues" and whatnot the whole time- that is, UNTIL Republicans start to say the same thing. Your position then sways due to the fact that the voices of dissent come from people you "trust" more than Democrats (understandably) and you say "Libs and Dems are now 'thinking'". The only point I was trying to make in my last comment was that you are now actually agreeing with what the Democrats have been saying all along, it's just that you're two years too late! You're free to change perception, of course, but I (as a loyal reader) wanted you to recognize that.
If this new oil agreement leads to the end of mortars, dead children and the death squads, GREAT. I hope it ends the bloodshed. However, you and I both know that oil isn't the end-all-be-all to this situation. Do I believe Bush was right all along, no, but if he proves to be the architect you claim him to be, I'll bend down, kiss your cyber feet and ask for forgiveness. Until that day, I'm still in the mindframe that he's been in the wrong.
Hi Sgt, good to hear from you. You said:
Rock, haven't caught the story yet, but I'll try to find it.
Most of my posts have links built into them. You can read the story just by clicking the link. The link for this story appears, as all my links do, with the color blue. The link that leads to the full story is entitled "Iraqis Near Deal on Distribution of Oil Revenues by Population - New York Times." Just click it to get the full story.
My links are a part of what I consider to be my service to the reader. I often have links to Wikepedia, for background information; and to the New York Times, or other sources, for the original articles. I want the reader to be able to fully inform himself/herself on any issue we discuss. I don't expect them just to take my word about something.
It takes a lot of time to include these links, so you're welcome to them, and enjoy.
Since my first trip to Afghanistan I have been saying that Iraq was a short term investment for democracy because they have at least an infrastructure to build upon and they will have the revenue from the oil in the country. I also believe that Afghanistan will be our generations Germany or Korea, and it will be the long rebuilding we saw in both countries, but look at them now, and Japan too. 'Stay the Course' or is that slogan gone now?
Thanks for your insights. "Stay the Course" is gone, but we might want to bring it back if this new oil deal goes through. I think your long-term view is great, and I think you've got something here that would benefit all America.
Have a great weekend.
Rock
Paz, great hearing from you. I have a little time so I'm going to visit your site today—more interesting stuff there today? Hope so. Anyway, you said:
Rock, you underestimate me! I think you're confusing my opposition to the war with what you perceive as a lack of a personal hope for a viable solution to this mess. I HOPE that innocent people stop dying in the streets of Baghdad, I HOPE the troops stop getting killed/maimed and are brought home sooner than later, I WISH these young American men and women were never in this mess to begin with.
I know you hope for the best for the Iraqi people, Paz, but I do get the feeling, as all we conservatives do, that you (not you personally, but liberals) will be happy for Iraqis as long as Bush gets no credit for it. You want the troops brought home. That's what you really want. You don't care about peace, or victory, you just want the troops home. I want peace and victory. If the troops staying there will bring peace and victory, may they stay there a hundred years. It's worth it. It will stop a nuke one day from landing on your house or my house, or killing your daughter or mine. If we can win in Iraq, then everything has been worth it.
I've never accused you of being a "flip flopper" on the Iraq issue at all. You've remained steadfast in your support of it and it's changing "rationale(s)".
Well, you should accuse me of being a "flip-flopper," because I am. I'm always on the side of truth, and truth never stays with a single position, nor with a single party. One day I'm right, the next you are right. One day Democrats have the answers, the next day the Republicans have the answers. Iraq a year ago might not have been Vietnam; today it might be. Yesterday there was no hope in Iraq; today a new oil deal might change everything.
The reason why there is some stability in my positions over time is that Republicans have been mostly right about the war, and Democrats mostly wrong. Therefore, I am consistent over time by backing the Republicans. I've not been averse, though, as you know, to criticizing Bush when I felt he was wrong.
You are consistent in your opinions about Iraq. We disagree though on fundamentals of the issue.
The thing I have called you out on is the fact that you consistently disagreed with the Dems' assessments on the war strategy (lack of troops, no viable plan, huge tactical errors, lack of real leadership from the top) calling them "anti American demagogues" and whatnot the whole time- that is, UNTIL Republicans start to say the same thing. Your position then sways due to the fact that the voices of dissent come from people you "trust" more than Democrats (understandably) and you say "Libs and Dems are now 'thinking'".
Paz, I can agree about the lack of leadership you bring up. I agree there has been no viable plan for the post-invasion, huge tactical errors, and lack of leadership from the top. But the liberals have never wanted to win in Iraq. They've never wanted more effective fighting with more troops. They've always been for withdrawal. They were for withdrawal before we went in. They are probably getting ready for withdrawal from our next war, with anyone, right this day—probably painting signs that say "No war for hydrogen fuel" and "No war for potatoes" or whatever. I'm being facetious, but not that much. Democrats think the answer to all our current problems are 60's anti-war slogans. They don't realize that we are in a real war against people that want to kill us, and will not reciprocate if we are "nice" to them and put flowers in their gun barrels.
The only point I was trying to make in my last comment was that you are now actually agreeing with what the Democrats have been saying all along, it's just that you're two years too late! You're free to change perception, of course, but I (as a loyal reader) wanted you to recognize that.
I do appreciate your loyalty, Paz, and respect your comments and opinions. Thank you for your sincere efforts to make this world a better place.
My point is, though, that, I see the situation now as it is, or try to. I don't worry about who said what or what my position was a year ago. The only standard I hold is, what is the truth of the matter. If this means I ally myself with Democrats on an issue, this doesn't bother me. I'm not anti-Democrat, I'm anti-truth. It just so happens, though, Paz, and here is where we disagree, the Democrats have been so far from the truth in recent years that they forgot what it looks like.
Because I might say that Iraq now might be like Vietnam, doesn't mean that this was true a year ago, when the Democrats were saying it. Then, it wasn't like Vietnam. The Democrats saying it was like Vietnam, in my opinion, helped make it more like Vietnam today. It was aid and succor to the enemy. It was anti-American, and it was disgraceful wishful thinking. Just pure partisan politics.
Now, I'm not saying this about you, as I sense that you are genuine, and were genuine. You have a right to your opinions on the issue, and I must say you might be right and I wrong. Neither of us will know for sure for about twenty years. So, I grant you that you personally have been honorable. I don't see that in your Democratic leadership. I see only demagogues, which I hate, and opportunists, rising to political power over the dead bodies of innocents and soldiers. On this, we will disagree; but on this, I am sure I am right, and you're wrong. Your Party is led by scoundrels.
If this new oil agreement leads to the end of mortars, dead children and the death squads, GREAT. I hope it ends the bloodshed. However, you and I both know that oil isn't the end-all-be-all to this situation. Do I believe Bush was right all along, no, but if he proves to be the architect you claim him to be, I'll bend down, kiss your cyber feet and ask for forgiveness. Until that day, I'm still in the mind frame that he's been in the wrong.
Paz, thanks. You display an open-mindedness that I admire and hope that liberals all over the world will learn from. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I do want you to be careful in your assessments. You are, I sense, doing this; so I have to respect your opinions. I have no such regard for your Howard Dean's, though, and Nancy Pelosi's. They are demagogues, and they just want power.
If Bush has been right about Iraq, then he will have done a great thing for the world. If you are right, about Bush and about the war, then I too will bow to you. Turnabout is fair play.
Paz, thank you. I hope you have a great weekend.
Rock
my my, what about that? oil huh? who woudda' thought? great post rock.....bee
Ok Mr Rock, great post, good information, and I hope you are right.
No person hates war more than a warrior, I want to be out of there, I want our troops home, and I want the killing of innocent people to stop. Unlike my friend Mr. Paz, who wants the same things, I understand that peace only comes through victory. We will either lose or we will win, peace comes as the spoils of war. This debate about the rightness or wrongness of the war is immaterial, the facts are what they are, we are in it up to our collectives necks, now lets win it and be done with it. What ever it takes my friend, the only hope we have is victory. WWII was a time when everyone was up front working for the war effort, what makes today different? Have we lost our will to win?
September 11, 2001 produced a nation so united no one could have beaten us. Every house had a flag flying, political bickering has divided us again, it is just as simple as a bunch of sticks, one is easily broken, all together they are strong, please God, show us the way to be strong.
The old sarge
Hey rock... I liked your post and unfortunately it is true in our world today that one of the best ways to control people is showing them money instead of their own realization that living peacefully is beneficial to them..
The thing is I've read something close to this report before, and the problem here will be with the Sunnis since most of the oil is concentrated in the North and South of Iraq (Kurdish and Shiite provinces respectively) while the middle part housing most Sunnis has a lot less amounts of oil...
But again, I hope against hope that there is some ray of hope and peace in Iraq so that the Middle East will be a little more peaceful...
Furthermore, you don't need to ask about using any of my posts; feel free to use anything you want anytime! But I'd also advise that you check out the link: Abu Kais on the right under links. He's a Shiite from Southern Lebanon who criticizes the Shiites blind following of Hezbollah using facts.. I think you'll find his post: "When death becomes a way of life" very useful for your blog.
Peace..
Post a Comment