Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Hurrah! We're all Free Now!
June 6, 2008 1:12 PM   Subscribe

New Allegations Have Surfaced that the US Is Effectively Holding Iraq's Oil Revenues Hostage to Force through a Proposed Long-Term Strategic Alliance, Raising New Questions about the US' Committment to an Independent, Self-Governing Iraq. The Deal, Which in its Current Form is Said to Provide for an Indefinite American Military Presence and Blanket Immunity from Iraqi Law for All American Troops and Civilian Contractors, Is Understandably Not All That Popular with Many Iraqi Citizens. Iraqi Lawmakers Have Also Expressed Doubts about the Deal. (IRAQ WAR/POLITICS FILTER.)
posted by saulgoodman (79 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
That's Really Interesting News, But Why The Odd Capitalization?
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2008 [11 favorites]


D'Oh. I Guess the Former Copy-Editor in Me Thought I Was Typing out a Title (Key-Capping).
posted by saulgoodman at 1:16 PM on June 6, 2008


Thanks For Addressing That Question Right Off Because It Was Interfering With Me Getting To The Actual Issues. (seriously)
posted by GuyZero at 1:17 PM on June 6, 2008


In short: NAHSUIEHIORHFPLTSARNQUSCISGITDWCFSPIAMPBIILAATCCIUNATPMICILHAEDD.
posted by shmegegge at 1:18 PM on June 6, 2008 [12 favorites]


NAHSUIEHIORHFPLTSARNQUSCISGITDWCFSPIAMPBIILAATCCIUNATPMICILHAEDD

umdiddle iddle iddle umdiddle aye
umdiddle iddle iddle umdiddle aye

posted by cog_nate at 1:21 PM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


If we don't liberate our oil in their country I for one will be extremely pissed.

Who in their right mind would launch a campaign costing over FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS and not get a pay-off to mitigate that staggering cost?
posted by tachikaze at 1:23 PM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


I mentioned this news yesterday on the Iraq-related thread, and I'm glad to see it get its own FPP. What I still don't understand, however, is what difference having an agreement will be once a new American administration is in place. If it's Obama, and he begins a process of withdrawl, in what court would ex-Bush people be able to argue their case that their non-Senate-approved 2008 "agreement" with Iraq for long-term occupation must be upheld? Seems like a total non-starter come January of next year.
posted by ornate insect at 1:25 PM on June 6, 2008


Don't Mention Bush. I Did It Once, But I Think I Got Away With It.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:29 PM on June 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


Let Iraqi Freedom Ring!


That's What This War Was About, Right?
posted by TrialByMedia at 1:31 PM on June 6, 2008


What I still don't understand, however, is what difference having an agreement will be once a new American administration is in place.

I'm fuzzy on that point, too.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:31 PM on June 6, 2008


"If we don't liberate our oil in their country I for one will be extremely pissed.

Who in their right mind would launch a campaign costing over FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS and not get a pay-off to mitigate that staggering cost?"


Yeah, I can picture the T-shirt:

MY TAX DOLLARS "LIBERATED" IRAQ
AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY
$5.00 PER GALLON UNLEADED
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:32 PM on June 6, 2008 [10 favorites]


our oil

Heh.
posted by ook at 1:32 PM on June 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


"So that's the title eh? Snappy! I like it! It's got punch! It's got pizazz! I just wish it could give the readers a little more idea what the article's about."
posted by rusty at 1:33 PM on June 6, 2008


Yeah, titles always have multiple sentences with subclauses and all

And "copy editor" is not hyphenated, either
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:35 PM on June 6, 2008


And "copy editor" is not hyphenated, either

damn. you're right. guess i'm pretty rusty then. (it has been over 6 years. and i've always been a little too zealous with the hyphens.)
posted by saulgoodman at 1:37 PM on June 6, 2008


metafilter: a little too zealous with the hyphens
posted by ornate insect at 1:39 PM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


If someone out there would promise to spend the profits on making the rest of the world not hate us as much, I'd buy one of those t-shirts.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:40 PM on June 6, 2008


If only we could hyphen the zealous.
posted by Forktine at 1:40 PM on June 6, 2008


I like hypens, but I already -ate
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:44 PM on June 6, 2008 [8 favorites]


hypens? Looks like u 8 ur h.
posted by ornate insect at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2008


What I still don't understand, however, is what difference having an agreement will be once a new American administration is in place.

I think Bush is trying to stack the deck in order to make it politically unfeasible for a Democratic president to withdraw. Cockburn talked about this a bit in his preceding article: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control. Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors:
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
I'm reminded of a passage from another article which russilwvong quoted here:
Is it possible that the new president will have that kind of resolution? I think not; to my ear Clinton and Obama don't sound drained of hope or bright ideas, determined to cut losses and end the agony. Why should they? They're coming in fresh from the sidelines. Getting out, giving up, admitting defeat are not what we expect from the psychology of newly elected presidents who have just overcome all odds and battled through to personal victory. They've managed the impossible once; why not again? Planning for withdrawals might begin on Day One, but the plans will be hostage to events.

At first, perhaps, all runs smoothly. Then things begin to happen. The situation on the first day has altered by the tenth. Some faction of Iraqis joins or drops out of the fight. A troublesome law is passed, or left standing. A helicopter goes down with casualties in two digits. The Green Zone is hit by a new wave of rockets or mortars from Sadr City in Baghdad. The US Army protests that the rockets or mortars were provided by Iran. The new president warns Iran to stay out of the fight. The government in Tehran dismisses the warning. This is already a long-established pattern. Why should we expect it to change? So it goes. At an unmarked moment somewhere between the third and the sixth month a sea change occurs: Bush's war becomes the new president's war, and getting out means failure, means defeat, means rising opposition at home, means no second term. It's not hard to see where this is going.
With the agreement in place, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to withdraw.
posted by homunculus at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2008


With the agreement in place, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to withdraw.

Why? The agreement is meaningless: zero Senate or Congressional approval, and minimal to no Iraqi Parlimentary approval (questions of blackmail aside). The irony here is so thick it's silly: Bush has for eight years shown utter contempt for previous agreements on pretty much everything. If he does not get impeached, thrown in jail, or retroactively investigated for criminal misconduct, he should consider himself lucky.
posted by ornate insect at 1:55 PM on June 6, 2008


meta-filter?
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:55 PM on June 6, 2008


And "copy editor" is not hyphenated, either

Q: How many copy editors does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Query: Last time this joke was told, it was about Californians. Is this intentional?
posted by eriko at 1:57 PM on June 6, 2008 [20 favorites]


What ornate said. Bush pretty much walked over all of America's international treaty obligations as if for sport when he took office.

For added context, note that all of this is happening right on the heels of the US military's acquittal of another one of the eight marines implicated in the Haditha killings. A lot of pro-Military conservatives are pretty happy about this outcome. Others, like the Council on Foreign Relations seem to hold the opinion that any outcome other than acquittal in those cases would be detrimental to US interests worldwide. However, in a country where the credibility of US military tribunal processes is already stretched pretty thin, it may be more likely this outcome will feed into Iraqi suspicions that the US doesn't intend to enforce its own laws where occupying forces are concerned, which could further exacerbate popular opposition to the agreement.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:58 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


If we don't liberate our oil in their country I for one will be extremely pissed.

I agree we went to war under false pretenses. I even believe Bush thought he was going to war to spread freedom and democracy, because he is a whack job. He needed to convince himself his energy advisors' pragmatic advice was good, but his higher calling was righteous, and it was convenient that they gelled. It was poorly conceived, planned, and executed. It has bankrupted us morally and literally.

Here we are, though. Is it unreasonable to expect that we end up with significant control over the oil reserves in Iraq? I don't think so. I would have preferred my tax money be spent on developing alternative energy, improving schools, creating jobs, etc. But, it wasn't. It was spent on a war and war profiteering. So, at the very least, my tax money and the $10,000 increase in my portion of the national debt should, at the very least, ensure access to an important resource.
posted by IndpMed at 2:00 PM on June 6, 2008


Is it unreasonable to expect that we end up with significant control over the oil reserves in Iraq?

I should think to the vast majority of Iraqis it's unreasonable. But perhaps their opinion does not matter?
posted by ornate insect at 2:02 PM on June 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


Is this really a surprise? The US invaded Iraq to take over the country, set up a puppet government, and set to work siezing its oil. This was the plan from the day Bush took office if not before. Aside from the spoils of war, the only other reason for the Iraq invasion is to justify cold war-level military spending in a time when it's hilariously unjustified, when the populace is supposed to be cowed (and thanks to scaremongering by politicians and press, is) by random attacks on non-military targets by disorganized but angry religious people.

The only way that the Iraq invasion and occupation can be defined as a 'war' is the fact that the country will be completely and utterly plundered and its innocent civilian populace will continue to be subjected to atrocities.
posted by mullingitover at 2:04 PM on June 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I can picture the T-shirt:

MY TAX DOLLARS "LIBERATED" IRAQ
AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY
$5.00 PER GALLON UNLEADED
Here you go.
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:05 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why? The agreement is meaningless

Oh, I agree. The republicans are trying to manipulate peoples' perceptions again, and this will be just another talking point for conservatives to use against president Obama. They'll say that not only are we cutting and running, but we're breaking our word by doing so.

Of course, it's complete horseshit, but the wingnuts will be screaming it from the rooftops. It will all depend on Obama and whether he's susceptible to it. He's been good at ignoring this kind of nonsense so far, but once he's president and it becomes his war, he may change. Time will tell.
posted by homunculus at 2:13 PM on June 6, 2008


What's the point of having a puppet government if you don't get to tell them what to do? Seriously. Maybe the Iraqis will get mad and start blowing shit up.

Oh wait, they are doing that.
posted by chunking express at 2:14 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


If he does not get impeached, thrown in jail, or retroactively investigated for criminal misconduct, he should consider himself lucky.

Huh? I was told this came with a "head on a stick" option. Wtf?
posted by dobbs at 2:17 PM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


But perhaps their opinion does not matter?

Naturally it does. A sharing arrangement agreeable to both the US and Iraq would be preferred relative to force-feeding the Iraqi government an agreement disproportoinately favorable to the US. But, are we supposed to be comfortable with the current result from our expenditures in lives and money: wealthier corporations and corporate executives friendly to bush, complete loss of international goodwill, ~hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, weakened domestic institutions...

A renewal of accountability as you earlier suggested, reinstituting domestic civil liberties (eliminating "unlawful enemy combatant" powers), reinvigorating domestic programs, working to regain international goodwill, and yes... realizing some form of material gain from Iraq is a better outcome than accepting the mess created.

Again, surely an arrangement can be worked out with the Iraqis to obtain that material gain, but under circumstances favorable to both the US and Iraq. Why wouldn't we ask? And, if rebuffed, why wouldn't ask more vigorously. Not advocating the current ploy to hold hostage monetary reserves. But, definitely advocating a pragmatic approach to at least one part of our exit strategy - leaving with something.
posted by IndpMed at 2:19 PM on June 6, 2008


cutting and running

Oh, it's horseshit indeed. Unless Mike Gravel is our next president, the smart money says we will still have SOME military presence in Iraq in June of 2010: no matter what happens. In case anyone reading has calendric illiteracy, that's Two-Years-Away.

At that point we can either have a draft, and pump another few trillion into the military-industrial bank accounts, or we can look at Corporal John Doe, now on his eighth tour of duty, and tell him he's going home.
posted by ornate insect at 2:19 PM on June 6, 2008


Did American membership in NATO, and large, long-term stationing of troops in Europe, "raise questions" about America's long-term commitment to "independent, self-governing" Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, and UK?
posted by Class Goat at 2:21 PM on June 6, 2008


tachikaze: "If we don't liberate our oil in their country I for one will be extremely pissed.

Who in their right mind would launch a campaign costing over FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS and not get a pay-off to mitigate that staggering cost?
"

Wait, are we talking about Hillary?
posted by symbioid at 2:23 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Damnit, I forgot to decontextualize the quote first. d'oh!
posted by symbioid at 2:24 PM on June 6, 2008


Because Iraq is just SO like post-WW2 Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, and UK. The comparison is just SO apt.
posted by ornate insect at 2:24 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Finally! A safe haven where our beleaguered leaders can commit war crimes without being disturbed. A wonderful land of plenty where assets can be hidden, and servants abused!
posted by blue_beetle at 2:29 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Further, we owe the Iraqis something. Not just leaving them and their oil alone. After more than a decade of devastating sanctions, not to mention the fallout from the use of dirty bombs during the first gulf war, we owe them peace, infrastructure development, oil production assistance, partnership. Maybe peace requires we pull out our military and turn these ridiculous permanent superbases into centers for planning and development.

Whatever the solution, leaving the Iraqis and their oil alone isn't it. And, the solution isn't do exactly what the majority of Iraqis want us to do either, although it would be good to start listening. It is likely do what we said we were going to do: help the country become a democratic self-governing nation-state, and help it rebuild after two wars and unforgivable sanctions. While doing this, we will also be repaying ourselves.

Is it impossible?
posted by IndpMed at 2:31 PM on June 6, 2008


America gets its just deserts.
posted by srboisvert at 2:41 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is it impossible?

IMO, yes. Interventionist foreign policy is a failure. What you're describing--bringing modernity back to Iraq, helping develop the economy, etc.--is neo-colonialism under a new rationale. Call it nation rebuilding, call it making up for our mistake, whatever you want. You're assuming, condescendingly, that the Iraqis, once left more or less alone, can't resolve their own social, political and economic challenges. (If anything, rather than sharing in their oil revenues, we should begin immediately paying massive non-defense related subsidies to them.) Even the rhetoric used to advance the argument is similar to that used by colonialists:

infrastructure development, oil production assistance, partnership.

I don't think you can undo the damage you note here in your previous comment:

complete loss of international goodwill,

While at the same time jockeying for this:

Again, surely an arrangement can be worked out with the Iraqis to obtain that material gain, but under circumstances favorable to both the US and Iraq.

The loss in international goodwill is a direct result of how America is now perceived as an aggressive criminal nation that invades other sovereign nations to rob them of their natural resources.

If we sneak out of Iraq now with our own bag stuffed with goodies--essentially cutting our own losses on the backs of the Iraqi people, after having left in ruins what in recent memory was a relatively stable and modern nation--our image in the international community is not going to improve anytime soon.

In the eyes of the rest of the world, we'll have gone from being a nation whose tragic overreach caused it to suffer grave economic and strategic losses to being an aggressive, criminal nation that pulled off one of the most ambitious resource grabs in recent memory and got away largely scot-free.

The latter is the kind of nation the rest of the world will keep gunning for long into the future.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:42 PM on June 6, 2008 [5 favorites]


sURELY tHIS...
posted by DU at 2:47 PM on June 6, 2008


You're assuming, condescendingly, that the Iraqis, once left more or less alone, can't resolve their own social, political and economic challenges.

Perhaps unintentionally, and maybe it is even negligently implied in my comments. Whether the Iraqis can or cannot resolve their challenges, having a partner helps. I'm assuming that with a more level-headed policy towards Iraq, we can be that partner.

Saulgoodman, I hear your comments though. Sneaking out with our bag of goodies would garner no goodwill. Although, I'm not sure that's what I was describing. Rather, a helping hand that is repaid once combined efforts are fruitful.
posted by IndpMed at 2:53 PM on June 6, 2008


IndpMed--I don't have a crystal ball, but it's not hard to see how this FUBAR thing in Iraq is going to play itself out. Over the next 6 to 12 to 18 months there will be no miraculous turnaround in Iraq, and as I mentioned upthread anyone who thinks some kind of immediate withdrawl is occuring under Obama in the first year of his administration is being delusional.

So we're looking now, realistically, at a minimum of 7 to 8 years occupation, probably over 5000 American lives , thousands maimed and wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, trillions of dollars down the blackhole of war profiteering, corruption and graft, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis displaced, low morale and severe PTSD for re-touring and returning soldiers, a military stretched impossibly thin, extreme animosity towards America among the Muslim world and the world in general (although this is the one thing we can expect some relief on once Bush is out of office), etc.

Those are the facts of the situation now, and almost certainly a year or two from now. If by the early fall of next year (and I say that out of realism), there has still been no major turnaround in Iraq--then we owe it to ourselves to begin a comprehensive withdrawl.

America is a finite country; our resources are finite. It is just creul and misguided folly to expect a miracle from so much tragic chaos.
posted by ornate insect at 2:55 PM on June 6, 2008


Ornate, I hear and respect your comment. However, my folly is in believing that the resources going to the military-industrial complex and also to war profiteering can be shifted to at least shoot for "miracles" as opposed to finding more ways to shoot people.

I agree turnaround is less likely under current priorities, and certainly not possibly in the short term you've mentioned. Change takes time.
posted by IndpMed at 3:02 PM on June 6, 2008


Steaky!

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
Mr. President, Iraq is sovereign...

Let Freedom Reign!
President Bush's definition of sovereignty is different than mine; to me, a "fully sovereign nation" would control its own airspace.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:46 PM on June 6, 2008


> withdrawl.

That's what Ah say. An' jes' 'zackly how Ah say it.
posted by jfuller at 5:11 PM on June 6, 2008


Although we change leadership in several different offices, there seem to be a distinct lineage in the descisions that are made. We may disagree on the little things (yes little), but there are issues that are certainly not for compromise--such as the existence or premiership of the state , quality of life, god and country and all that good stuff. These must be considered no matter what your position is on this issue. Despite so much dissent I believe the will of the majority of the population is reflected in the actions of the government.

In short, everything is connected. The Iraqi-US road to collision does indeed go back well over a decade and the forces that have real agency are in the background and affect change via invisible power structures. I don't believe for a second that most officials simply retire to a farm somewhere once their term is up. And Ironically, in this age of information, we're kept in the dark as we ever were. Hence we are far from immune to the invisible hand of GWB through 2011. Frontline or the History Channel will give youy the scoop in 30-40 years if you're still alive.
posted by Student of Man at 5:36 PM on June 6, 2008


(looks at switch lever, kicks to derail....)

Q: How many mathematicians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One. He takes out the copy editor, thereby reducing it to the earlier joke.

(gets guilty look, flips lever back to mainline..)
posted by eriko at 6:35 PM on June 6, 2008


Immanuel Wallerstein outlines a more likely outcome:

sometime in 2009 (or 2010 at the very latest), the Prime Minister of Iraq will be Muqtada al-Sadr, and that al-Sadr will bring the war to an end. [...] al-Sadr, al-Sistani, the Sunni, and even the Kurds will come together on a plank of national unity and U.S. total withdrawal without long-term bases. Muqtada al-Sadr will implement this as Prime Minister. Al-Hakim will be unhappy, but kept in line by al-Sistani. The Iranians will be ambivalent. The U.S. public and pundits will be amazed at the relative calm in Iraq. And President Obama and the Pentagon won't have too much choice. They will graciously assent. They may even proclaim "victory."
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:03 PM on June 6, 2008


Here we are, though. Is it unreasonable to expect that we end up with significant control over the oil reserves in Iraq? I don't think so. I would have preferred my tax money be spent on developing alternative energy, improving schools, creating jobs, etc. But, it wasn't. It was spent on a war and war profiteering. So, at the very least, my tax money and the $10,000 increase in my portion of the national debt should, at the very least, ensure access to an important resource.

Wow. Well, here's a thought. I'm going to hire some very expensive thugs to drive you and your family from your house and possessions. It's only fair then that I get to recoup the loss. Motherfucker.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:52 PM on June 6, 2008 [6 favorites]


what noisy cats are we.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:09 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


The vociferous ZachsMind reads through the thread, then prepares himself to vociferously ramble for hours about the futility of international relations between the world and America due to Bush being an ass, as well as several paragraphs about how it doesn't matter if Obama or McCain get the next presidency because no politician in their right mind would pull out of Iraq now, which is yet another reason why no one should bother voting: it's pointless.

He decides instead there's more important things to do, like play City of Heroes, or wash his hair, or go to bed.

posted by ZachsMind at 12:02 AM on June 7, 2008


IndpMed, you still don't get it, do you? This was no war. It was an invasion of a country, actually one of the more advanced in the region. The invasion was called a war, dressed with shameless lies, against a country with a leader few liked (US and UK being "friends" of the regime for many years), who nevertheless had managed to pull its people together in order to develop a secular society in a sea of fundamentalism (muslim and jewish, basically). Iraqis were highly educated, had excellent infrastructure and quite a bit of money (before the sanctions).

Then the US et al came and bombed the country back to the century before last. They kept lying, and they gave us some very memorable, even though not quite new stuff: shoot first ask questions later, enemy combatants, Abu Ghraib (used here as a generic title for all their nice establishments), Blackwater (you can expand this list yourself).

In short, they fucked a whole country up (two countries, actually), based on lies. And now you come along and demand to be compensated.

I'm sure you think you were being reasonable, and that's what I find so sad.
posted by acrobat at 3:00 AM on June 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


Demonstrations, Speeches Against Security Agreement; PM Faces Split in Own Party
posted by homunculus at 11:15 AM on June 7, 2008


Last month I tried to make an FFP on a contentious topic (global warming), linking one new magazine article, and summarizing it well, with my own editorial comment. The post was taken down immediately! The controllers said was too controversial to have included my own opinion; would not make a good debate. Just counting only the first half of the responses here, there are about 9 sarcastic nothings, and about 5 discussions of capitalization in editing. Mine, however, was deemed unworthy of initiating debate and was not even allowed to try. Hmmm..... I Wonder what's up with Mefi's controllers. Anyone else having problems with "blackballing"?
posted by yazi at 11:45 AM on June 7, 2008


yazi, I'm right there with you, but I've grown used to being silenced all of my life.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:53 AM on June 7, 2008


i'm completely stunned that someone, like anotherpanacea, might agree with me. i was checking just to see when my little post would be take off. you're welcome to email me, sir or madam. tell me an anecdote or two. i thought my "take down" was fabulously unfair, esp. for having spent 6 mos. watching, reading, responding, and enjoying some great pleasures and great fights on MeFi.
Any others?
posted by yazi at 12:12 PM on June 7, 2008


BTW: my silenced FPP was about one of the world's greatest scientific thinkers and writers who said that global warming advocates included a goodly number who were in it for reasons of sois-dissant high spititual (new-religious) principles, and were losing perspective on what might really help this globe of ours. I guess this great mind's opinion was just the incorrect one. I'll say no more on this thread about this complaint of mine... that's enough.
posted by yazi at 12:16 PM on June 7, 2008


yazi, I'm sorry... that was a little mean spirited of me. The truth is, if you're troubled by your deletion, you should probably e-mail one of the moderators to talk about it. They might be able to help you reframe your post so that it will pass muster. But keep in mind that it's Saturday, and they'd probably prefer not to deal with cranky and cantankerous users.

It's generally accepted around here that postings get deleted for lots of reasons, that moderators do a good job and have good intentions, and that their principle aim is to avoid extreme contention that leads to a lot of cleanup work on their part. None of this is so serious that any of us should nurse hurt feelings over it. It's just the internet, just a lot of nerds chatting. Try to stay detached from the shit storms and you'll be happier. I've had a number of posts deleted, and there's no shame in it; the key is to avoid playing the victim.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:26 PM on June 7, 2008


Dyson's article was discussed in this thread which is still open, btw.
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on June 7, 2008


yazi, all else aside it's generally considered not so kosher to start a metacommentary thing up in a thread on the blue; if you want to have a public on-site discussion of that deletion or anything else, the thing to do is make a post to Metatalk.

Just starting into it on in an existing thread on the blue is a bit of a derail, and folks won't even know it's here to talk about besides. I'd appreciate it if you could drop it in here and go to email or metatalk if you want to talk about it more.
posted by cortex at 1:45 PM on June 7, 2008


The new president warns Iran to stay out of the fight.

The Iranians will greet us as liberators.
posted by neuron at 2:20 PM on June 7, 2008


NBC’s Engel: Permanent Bases Would Technically Be Iraqi With U.S. ‘Tenants’ As ‘A Face Saving Device’
posted by homunculus at 3:22 PM on June 7, 2008


In other news: US quits Human Rights Council
posted by homunculus at 12:04 AM on June 8, 2008


um, does anyone actually believe that US control of oil in Iraq would in any way benefit the average American? this all about vast amount of wealth for very rich oil companies. as Bill Hicks was wont to say, "go back to sleep America".
posted by sineater at 7:44 PM on June 8, 2008


But Murdoch promised us $20/barrel oil!

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:01 AM on June 9, 2008


eponysterical, anotherpanacea.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:09 AM on June 9, 2008


In other news: Olmert Hints U.S. Action on Iran Nukes is Near
posted by homunculus at 11:32 AM on June 9, 2008


In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran
posted by homunculus at 8:22 PM on June 11, 2008


CNN’s Ware: Iraqis Reject Security Agreement Draft, May ‘Go It Alone’ And ‘Take Over This War’ From U.S.
posted by homunculus at 11:05 PM on June 13, 2008


World governments misleading and failing Iraqi refugees
posted by homunculus at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2008


Iraq deal with US to end immunity for foreign contractors
posted by homunculus at 9:17 AM on June 18, 2008


Robert Fisk: Snapshots of life in Baghdad. The dangerous face of ordinary life has been captured by Iraqis on their mobile phones – reaching the places Western photographers can no longer go.
posted by homunculus at 9:19 AM on June 18, 2008


Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
posted by homunculus at 1:17 PM on June 19, 2008


Mission Accomplished!
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2008


Sending a Better Message to the People of Iraq
posted by homunculus at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2008


No Blood for... er... um...
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on June 23, 2008


« Older Captured Monsters, a classic monster movie screenc...  |  McDonald's Line Rider Commerc... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments