The OAO Iraq Debate thread

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22...rope/index.html

 

Bush wins NATO help to train Iraqi forces

U.S., European Union offer to host forum on aid to Iraq

 

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- NATO leaders agreed Tuesday to help the United States train Iraqi forces, President Bush said at the latest stop on his three-nation tour of Europe.

 

Later, after Bush met with European Union leaders, officials announced they were readying an EU-U.S. forum to coordinate international aid to Iraq.

 

Despite disagreements about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, members of the NATO military alliance are looking to the future, the president said.

 

"Twenty-six nations sat around the table saying, 'Let's get the past behind us and now let's focus on helping the world's newest democracy succeed,'" Bush said during a post-summit news conference with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

 

De Hoop Scheffer added, "It was an excellent summit."

 

All 26 NATO members pledged in some capacity to support the alliance's mission in Iraq to train Iraqi security officers -- whether through personnel or financial donations.

 

Training Iraqi military and police forces is seen as a key component to reducing the 150,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.

 

"The NATO training mission is an important mission because after all, the success of Iraq depends upon the capacity and the willingness of the Iraqis to defend their own selves against terrorists," Bush said.

 

Some NATO countries -- like France and Germany -- have refused to participate in training inside Iraq. France has offered to train Iraqi personnel outside the country.

 

In Iraq, the nation's main Shiite Muslim political coalition on Tuesday named its choice for Iraq's next prime minister, an Iraqi political official said. The United Iraqi Alliance's nominee, Dawa Party leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari, has opposed the early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. (Full story)

Bush's 'listening tour'

 

Dismissing comments by a reporter who said Bush was on a "charm offensive" in Europe, the president said his was a different kind of trip.

 

"You might call this a listening tour: that people have got things on their mind, and they want me to hear it, and part of what they've got on their mind is the dialogue that's taken place with China and the European Union," Bush said, referring to a European initiative to lift an arms embargo against China.

 

Europe and the United States blocked weapons sales to China in response to Beijing's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

 

Bush cited a "deep concern" in the United States about relaxing arms restrictions, which he said "would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan."

 

The president said European leaders promised to develop a protocol to assuage U.S. fears.

 

Bush said he was glad he attended the NATO summit.

 

"It gave me a chance to say that the relationship between the United States and Europe is a vital relationship, a necessary relationship, an important relationship," he said.

 

"It's a relationship and an organization that needs to make sure that its capabilities meet the threats of the 21st century."

Spreading values

 

Later Tuesday, the president met with EU leaders on a range of issues, including counterterrorism and global warming.

 

Afterward, European Council President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the EU and the United States would host an Iraqi aid forum if the country's government asked.

 

Bush emphasized several times in comments to reporters the closeness of the ties between the United States and Europe, despite past disagreements.

 

"It's in our interest, because the values that caused the European Union to exist in the first place, the values of human rights and human dignity and freedom, are the same values we share," he said. "And we have an opportunity to work together to spread those values."

 

Bush also addressed the so-called nuclear threat from Iran, saying he's getting good advice from his European partners on the issue.

 

"Great Britain, Germany and France are negotiating with the ayatollahs to achieve a common objective, something that we all want, and that is for them not to have a nuclear weapon," the president said at a news conference. "It's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

 

He dismissed the idea that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran as "ridiculous" but did not close that door entirely.

 

"Having said all that, all options are on the table," he said, prompting laughter from some in the audience. (Full story)

Breaking bread with Chirac

 

Earlier Tuesday, Bush met separately with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

 

Bush praised the British leader. "A strong Europe is very important for the United States ... The prime minister is one of the strong leaders in Europe," he said.

 

Blair returned the compliment: "The president set out very clearly a way forward on the Middle East process. There is a renewed sense of vigor and optimism."

 

Besides Belgium, Bush's fence-mending mission to Europe also will include stops in Germany and Slovakia.

 

The president is set to meet with virtually every major political figure on the continent. On Monday, he dined with French President Jacques Chirac and is expected to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday.

 

Chirac -- a strong critic of Bush's Iraq policy -- and the U.S. president held what was later described as an "extremely cordial" dinner meeting.

 

The two leaders insisted that the Franco-American partnership remains strong despite frayed feelings over Iraq.

 

A senior administration official said the meeting between Bush and Chirac ran longer than expected and covered such issues as Iraq, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the European Union move to lift the arms embargo on China.

 

You know you're on a roll when you start fulfilling your opponent's campaign promises.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

So Bush can't do anything Kerry promised?

 

Under your theory, a party should run a candidate with the opposing party's platform and then lose.

[SuperJerk 0]

So Bush can't do anything Kerry promised?

 

Under your theory, a party should run a candidate with the opposing party's platform and then lose.

I didn't say he couldn't do it. I said he was on a roll.

 

You know you're on a roll when you start fulfilling your opponent's campaign promises.

 

SEE?????

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I meant "can't do it" as in "isn't allowed to".

[2GOLD 0]

Well, I always said Bush and Kerry were basically the same person and this confirms it.

 

I think Bush is actually doing damn well with rebuilding Iraq. It's taking the amount of time I expected and seems to be heading in the right direction. Granted, that doesn't make me think he's a great President but I'll tip my hat to what we have done lately.

 

If he manages to help lead Palenstein down the road to democracy then I'll say he was an ok President overall.

 

I'll call someone a great President when hell freezes over.

[Justice 0]

Saw this when the thread was bumped and couldn't allow this crap to fester on the top of the pile...

 

Saddam Hussein and his Bathist party were evil, evil men. They used poison gas, a real live 100% official Weapon of Mass Destruction, on his own people.

 

Where did Saddam Hussein get chemical weapons from? If your answer is "The United States of America, while the first George Bush was president and several key members of the current Bush administration were in important positions" you win the grand prize. Otherwise you should refer to a dictionary and look up "hypocrisy".

Since this thread was raised from the dead, I noticed the stuff C-Bacon posted, which needs some serious revision.

 

Bullshit argument. Many European Countries provided them millons of dollars worth of equipment for producing such things, including cultures. We hardly built their WMDs program nearly as much as most other countries. Their nuclear program was a product of France giving them a nuclear reactor.

 

Secondly, this isn't hypocrasy. If one makes a mistake in the past, he isn't allowed to correct it? What the hell! Perhaps we should put slavery back into practice, otherwise we'd be hypocrits! Hey, no more women's rights because we'd be hypocritical looking back at our past history. It's not hypocritical to correct ones mistakes.

 

Obviously the solution was to let Saddam stay in power as long as he could because any action against him would be 'hypocritical'.

 

If you just wanted Saddam out, there were easier ways. Ease the sanctions, which strengthen Saddam's grip on his own people, to start, and he'd probably be tossed out by Iraqis within ten years. He probably would have been tossed out by now, if not for the sanctions.

 

Ahahahahahahaha...

 

This is absolute bullshit. We saw how a popular revolt went when Saddam was at his weakest after the Gulf War and it was crushed utterly and ruthlessly. This dream that the Iraqis could somehow be empowered enough to throw him out with his iron grip is the greatest pipe dream you ever thought up.

 

And on Sanctions: Had they been lifted or lowered, Saddam was fully prepared to restart his WMD programs (As stated in the last WI Report). The only reason the UN IMPOSED SANCTIONS failed was because of the corruption within the UN, not the stiffness of the sanctions themselves.

 

Also, it's very hard to swallow talk about the noble intentions, instilling democracy, etc, when the people talking haven't even publicly admitted that they kept Saddam in power for years, that by his worst crimes were committed when he was a friend of the US, that he remained a friend for years before he became an official enemy, that there was a chance to let the people of Iraq overthrow him after the first gulf war but the US chose not to do so because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, etc. Given the lack of talk of all this (most of this wasn't even mentioned, or was barely mentioned, in the supposedly "left-wing" mainstream media), there was absolutely no reason to be optimistic about the true intentions of the administration, especially given that it's a lot of the same people.

 

I don't remember us ever admitting to 'keeping Saddam in power'. We gave him help to fight Iran via "Enemy of my enemy = friend". Was it a moral mistake? Yes, definitely. Did we single-handedly set him up and keep him in power? Good God no. Again, his suppliers were primarly Western Europe and Russia more than us. People who were funding him and selling him equipment right up until hours before the invasion. People that were fighting for the sanctions to be lifted and delaying action against him in the UN. Who kept him in power? Outside our support in the 80s against Iran, we've done very little in supporting Saddam, especially when one looks at countries like Russia, France, and Germany.

 

Or does that fuck up your argument against 'nobility' too much to recognize it?

 

Finally, there's still no reason to be optimistic. Yes, there has been an election. The point is that the US comes in, obliterates the existing power structure, allows a new one to be built up, but there's an understanding that they'll be reaping the benefits, in control of oil, which they are. You can give Iraqis the pretense of elections as long as they don't get any silly ideas, like nationalizing oil. If that happens (already unlikely given the US military presence and influence), you can bet it won't be allowed to stand.

 

We aren't in control of Oil: it's all in control of the Iraqi government. Of course they are going to give us 'benefits': We fucking liberated them. Do you expect them to just spit in our eye or something? Or are you the guy who likes to punch the guy who beats up the bully who picks on you?

 

I see a great reason for cautious optimism. Both with NATOs new involvment and an actual Iraqi-run Constitutional Congress going are two excellent developments. Both of these will be great helps. Your consistent defeatism and pessimism through stretching of the facts and arguments that have proven to be just plain wrong.

 

Touchy subject, eh? I know I’d feel the same if my country were involved with such atrocities. Ignoring crimes of the past are so convenient, just as they are of the crimes today.

 

Still ignoring the massive attrocities committed by the Sandinistas? I've recognized that the Contras were a horrible bunch, but you have yet to fess up and admit that the Sandinistas did stuff just as bad (And even worse when you consider the damn near slaughter of the Pacific Coast indians). If anyone is guilty of convientent igorance, I'd say it'd be you.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Justice

[SuperJerk 0]

I meant "can't do it" as in "isn't allowed to".

I didn't say he wasn't allowed to do it, either.

 

I said he was on a roll.

 

(In other words, I was trying to be serious.)

[cbacon 0]

Bullshit argument. Many European Countries provided them millons of dollars worth of equipment for producing such things, including cultures. We hardly built their WMDs program nearly as much as most other countries. Their nuclear program was a product of France giving them a nuclear reactor.

 

I've never heard of European countries selling chemical/biological weapons to Saddam, but let's pretend for a second that it's true, since it very well might be - so what? Just because the Europeans were being dumb-asses doesn't mean the U.S. should be too. I enjoyed your reference to their nuclear program. The one that never produced a weapon and hadn't even been pursued since the U.S. stopped supporting Saddam.

 

Ahahahahahahaha...

 

This is absolute bullshit. We saw how a popular revolt went when Saddam was at his weakest after the Gulf War and it was crushed utterly and ruthlessly. This dream that the Iraqis could somehow be empowered enough to throw him out with his iron grip is the greatest pipe dream you ever thought up.

 

And on Sanctions: Had they been lifted or lowered, Saddam was fully prepared to restart his WMD programs (As stated in the last WI Report). The only reason the UN IMPOSED SANCTIONS failed was because of the corruption within the UN, not the stiffness of the sanctions themselves.

 

Even if the people couldn't have staged an uprising in a Sanction-free Iraq (although it's pretty much a fact that they would have had a MUCH better chance), the sanctions themselves caused suffering and death on the same level as Saddam's reign and the invasion. Sources from the UN claim that the number of people who died due to the embargo is in the millions.

 

Secondly, this isn't hypocrasy. If one makes a mistake in the past, he isn't allowed to correct it? What the hell! Perhaps we should put slavery back into practice, otherwise we'd be hypocrits! Hey, no more women's rights because we'd be hypocritical looking back at our past history. It's not hypocritical to correct ones mistakes.

 

Obviously the solution was to let Saddam stay in power as long as he could because any action against him would be 'hypocritical'.

 

Knowingly supporting a murderous dictator throughout his worst years because it was an economically sound decision and then turning on him once he'd more or less mellowed out and is no longer a useful ally isn't hypocritical? Criticizing him for having a weapons program you largely constituted isn't hypocritical?

 

Still ignoring the massive attrocities committed by the Sandinistas? I've recognized that the Contras were a horrible bunch, but you have yet to fess up and admit that the Sandinistas did stuff just as bad (And even worse when you consider the damn near slaughter of the Pacific Coast indians). If anyone is guilty of convientent igorance, I'd say it'd be you.

 

One tyranny justifies another? In regards to the Miskito relocation, yes it was most likely a bad idea and the FSLN should respect their land rights or atleast warn them in advance, but the deaths you talk about are non-existant and were fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion by the Sandistia oppontents. Human Rights groups that investigated the relocation for no evidense of such mass killings.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Sandinstia had majority support in Nicaragua as proven by the elections in 1984, and even the elections in 1988 they barely lost. Not to mention that the whole towline of the opposing party was "Hey, the contras don't hate us, we might be able to achieve peace", and the people natural wanted the contra bombings to end. The Contras didn't even come close to have majority support, the FSLN did. To this day the FSLN is the offical oppsition part of Nicaragua.

[Justice 0]

I've never heard of European countries selling chemical/biological weapons to Saddam, but let's pretend for a second that it's true, since it very well might be - so what? Just because the Europeans were being dumb-asses doesn't mean the U.S. should be too. I enjoyed your reference to their nuclear program. The one that never produced a weapon and hadn't even been pursued since the U.S. stopped supporting Saddam.

Yes, they've given him numerous amounts of equipment in which to produce such weapons, far more than us. I mention this because you act as we are the only, and the worst, offender here. We aren't, we made mistakes. But we didn't continue them like some of the European Countries did.

 

Secondly, Saddam specifically stated that the nuclear reactor was for the purpose of starting a nuclear arms program. The only reason it never got used for that was because the Israelis took it out. Just because we haven't found anything doesn't mean he wasn't pursuing it (Since the good-old "Lookin' for Uranium" story actually turned out to be more reality than fiction).

 

Even if the people couldn't have staged an uprising in a Sanction-free Iraq (although it's pretty much a fact that they would have had a MUCH better chance), the sanctions themselves caused suffering and death on the same level as Saddam's reign and the invasion. Sources from the UN claim that the number of people who died due to the embargo is in the millions.

 

First off, there was no chance either way. You don't seem to understand that what you are dreaming about was pure fiction; they couldn't rise up, and this was proven quite ably when Saddam tore them apart when he was at his weakest politically and militarially.

 

The sanctions themselves were also coupled with a "Food-For-Oil" program that was supposed to provide for the people of Iraq. We find out that it didn't work not because it was inadequate, but because of corrupt politicans and Saddam utterly fucking looting it. If anyone is to blame for the hardships of sanctions on the people, it is Saddam for stealing the food and money that was rightly supposed to go to his fucking people. You act as though we simply put on sanctions without any consideration for the people of Iraq, which is again completely false.

 

Knowingly supporting a murderous dictator throughout his worst years because it was an economically sound decision and then turning on him once he'd more or less mellowed out and is no longer a useful ally isn't hypocritical? Criticizing him for having a weapons program you largely constituted isn't hypocritical?

 

WE DIDN'T FUCKING LARGELY CONSTITUTE IT. OVER 75% OF THE SHIT WE FOUND IN THE FIRST GULF WAR WASN'T ANYTHING WE HAD EVER GIVEN HIM, YOU IDIOT.

 

Okay, with that out of the way...

 

You ignored the entire argument I made. It's not hypocritical. We realized the mistake we made, and now we've corrected it. I don't understand how correcting one's past wrongs makes one somehow hypocritical. When you make a spelling mistake, do you always spell the word the wrong way for fear of being called a hypocrit.

 

I love that 'he mellowed out'. I find that hilarious considering he's murdered more people in the 90s then he ever did before and basically starved his population of food. What a great way to 'mellow out'...

 

One tyranny justifies another? In regards to the Miskito relocation, yes it was most likely a bad idea and the FSLN should respect their land rights or atleast warn them in advance, but the deaths you talk about are non-existant and were fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion by the Sandistia oppontents. Human Rights groups that investigated the relocation for no evidense of such mass killings.

 

You, good sir, are a liar.

More.

And more.

And even MORE.

 

Amnesty Int and other organizations have also said similar statements. The Sandinistas were a brutal fucking government, and it's really sad how much of an appologist you are for them. I don't defend anything the Contras did, why do you defend the Sandinistas so much?

 

The fact of the matter is that the Sandinstia had majority support in Nicaragua as proven by the elections in 1984, and even the elections in 1988 they barely lost. Not to mention that the whole towline of the opposing party was "Hey, the contras don't hate us, we might be able to achieve peace", and the people natural wanted the contra bombings to end. The Contras didn't even come close to have majority support, the FSLN did. To this day the FSLN is the offical oppsition part of Nicaragua.

 

 

Wow, you do a piss poor job of defending them.

Edited February 25, 2005 by Justice

[NoCalMike 0]

I've already made my feelings known on the Iraq war, however it is a bit disturbing that half the time you can find more up to date information on daily happenings in Iraq on the smartmarks board then mainstream corporate media outlets who would rather talk about Michael Jackson sneezing.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've already made my feelings known on the Iraq war, however it is a bit disturbing that half the time you can find more up to date information on daily happenings in Iraq on the smartmarks board then mainstream corporate media outlets who would rather talk about Michael Jackson sneezing.

And what is the "information" that the "corporate media" is "covering up"?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

The sanctions themselves were also coupled with a "Food-For-Oil" program that was supposed to provide for the people of Iraq. We find out that it didn't work not because it was inadequate, but because of corrupt politicans and Saddam utterly fucking looting it. If anyone is to blame for the hardships of sanctions on the people, it is Saddam for stealing the food and money that was rightly supposed to go to his fucking people. You act as though we simply put on sanctions without any consideration for the people of Iraq, which is again completely false.

 

The information I'm about to post was widely reported in mainstream news sources earlier this year, so either the problem is that you live in a box or you're deliberately lying.

 

The problems found with the oil-for-food program were problems with the people in the United Nations who were running the program and with the multi-national corporations who were involved. There has been zero evidence found of any impropriety on Saddam's part.

 

According to the CBC:

 

Internal auditors found UN officials repeatedly overpaid contractors and inadequately monitored the program, set up to let Iraq export oil despite economic sanctions and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and other supplies.

 

However, they didn't find any clear evidence of corruption, payoffs to UN staffers or kickbacks to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, all of which have been alleged in U.S. congressional hearings.

 

I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you say unless you can start backing up your claims with some sort of reputable source (a solid grounding in reality would be a good place to start, too).

 

As well, here's a good read for those of you who like stories with citings.

 

So really, i've never heard any of these 'facts' from any extremist right wing source, let alone level-headed people. Seems suspect to me. "Over 75% of the "shit" "we" found in the first Gulf War wasn't anything "we" had ever given him, "you idiot," is a claim worth backing up. I'd like to see it.

 

 

 

You, good sir, are a liar.

More.

And more.

And even MORE.

 

Amnesty Int and other organizations have also said similar statements. The Sandinistas were a brutal fucking government, and it's really sad how much of an appologist you are for them. I don't defend anything the Contras did, why do you defend the Sandinistas so much?

 

Look, I didn't deny that the Sandisntas were without fault, but the point i'm making is that they're crimes are undetectable in comparison with the crimes that the US has supported.

 

Surely the Sadnistas HAD to go, despite the fact that while leader of the FSLN, Daniel Ortega, was a die-hard Marxist right after the war, the FSLN included a broad scale of ideologies (from Wikipedia):

 

-Nationalisation of property owned by the Somozas and their collaborators.

Land reform.

-Improved rural and urban working conditions.

-Free unionisation for all workers, both urban and rural.

-Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine).

-Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign).

-Nationalisation and protection of natural resources, including mines.

-Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty.

-Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organisation and association, and religion; return of political exiles).

-Equality for women.

-Free, non-aligned foreign policy and relations.

-Formation of a new, democratic, and popular army under the leadership of the FSLN.

-Pesticide controls

-Rain forest conservation

-Wildlife conservation

-Alternative energy programs

 

Now, peace in Nicaragua was short-lasted. When Reagan assumed office he ordered the CIA to rearm and begin financing the remains of the National Guard to fight against the FSLN. These groups became known as Contras. A complete economic embargo was inplaced on Nicaragua and the CIA planted underwater mines to destroy ships coming into harbours, an act that was declared illegal by the UN.

 

Despite all this, the FSLN held an election in 1984 that was deemed "fair and free" by international observers and resulted in a FSLN victory.

 

In response to your articles on human rights abuses, i've seen contradictions regarding some of these numbers, hence i stated they're 'tyranical rule' was blown way out of propotion. I'll get back to this when I have more time. These claims are also a contradiciton to the fact that the FSLN outlawed the death penality, and for the most part political prisoners weren't even taken unless they were hostile and had connections to the Contras. But like I said, i'll get back to that.

 

The treatment of the Miskitos, while inexcusable, isn't even close to be anything near the worst in Latin America. The United States' record is worse than that, just for example. Mexico's is too. More people died at the hands of the government of El Salvador at the time.

[NoCalMike 0]

I've already made my feelings known on the Iraq war, however it is a bit disturbing that half the time you can find more up to date information on daily happenings in Iraq on the smartmarks board then mainstream corporate media outlets who would rather talk about Michael Jackson sneezing.

And what is the "information" that the "corporate media" is "covering up"?

-=Mike

Has nothing to do with "covering up information" I mean we can debate THAT issue at some other point, rather I am more referring to the 10 seconds an attack in Iraq is talked about compared to the headlining story of the Michael Jackson case, with fifteen or so legal experts discussing how his new haircut may or may not sway a jury....

[Justice 0]

The problems found with the oil-for-food program were problems with the people in the United Nations who were running the program and with the multi-national corporations who were involved. There has been zero evidence found of any impropriety on Saddam's part.

No kickbacks? Not true.

 

Washington Post

 

Another recipient was Benon Sevan, the former top U.N. official in charge of humanitarian relief. Sevan ran the former oil-for-food program designed to benefit the Iraqi people in the face of economic sanctions intended to cripple Saddam's regime, the report says.

 

...

 

An Iraqi newspaper said earlier this year that Sevan, whose activities are now under investigation for the by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, received vouchers to purchase millions of barrels of Iraqi crude through several companies. The Duelfer report says that Sevan was allocated 13 million barrels of oil, of which 7.3 million were cashed in.

 

The economist has a nice report on this, as well

 

They cite a few places where they did limit the investigation (perhaps most indicative of what type of investigation this really is, they forgot all about Kojo Annan...) and I'd really like to see what the non-UN Auditors have to say about this.

 

So really, i've never heard any of these 'facts' from any extremist right wing source, let alone level-headed people. Seems suspect to me. "Over 75% of the "shit" "we" found in the first Gulf War wasn't anything "we" had ever given him, "you idiot," is a claim worth backing up. I'd like to see it.

 

Okay, perhaps I was a bit frustrated with you there. Anyways, here we go:

 

NYT: Who armed Iraq?

What Iraq Admitted about it's CWP.

 

Just as well:

 

There are NO reports of anyone EVER finding ANY American-made chemical or bio-weapons in Iraq, before, during, or after. If you have ANY articles that prove that American Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, please produce them. Otherwise, please shut up about us arming them. There are far, far more worthy candidates for that scorn.

 

 

Surely the Sadnistas HAD to go, despite the fact that while leader of the FSLN, Daniel Ortega, was a die-hard Marxist right after the war, the FSLN included a broad scale of ideologies (from Wikipedia):

 

Hey, Communist Russia had all those ideals, too. Just because they list them doesn't mean that it was gonna work out exactly that way. Again, I've provided articles that talk about killings of political dissidents and the Indians. Providing their idealistic list and once again trying to shift the blame doesn't hide the fact that the Sandinistas weren't a good regieme, and that there was ample reason for them to be pushed out. The only problem was we chose the most ass-backwards way of doing it.

[Vyce 0]

I've already made my feelings known on the Iraq war, however it is a bit disturbing that half the time you can find more up to date information on daily happenings in Iraq on the smartmarks board then mainstream corporate media outlets who would rather talk about Michael Jackson sneezing.

And what is the "information" that the "corporate media" is "covering up"?

-=Mike

Has nothing to do with "covering up information" I mean we can debate THAT issue at some other point, rather I am more referring to the 10 seconds an attack in Iraq is talked about compared to the headlining story of the Michael Jackson case, with fifteen or so legal experts discussing how his new haircut may or may not sway a jury....

Here is a news flash (pun intended) for you: even though there are a lot of people in America who dislike Bush, even they don't want to see half of their news program every night devoted to the latest Iraq attack, though it would be politically damaging to Bush for the networks to do so. People only have a stomach for a limited amount of that thing (both the violence and the propaganda).

 

And sad to say, a good chunk of our society is enthralled with all things celebrity and / or perverse, and Jacko combines the two in spades.

 

But I could turn your question around and ask why do the networks spend so little time focusing on the "good things" we're doing in Iraq, because though there have been obvious difficulties in rebuilding their infrastructure, there are plenty of happy stories to tell which none of us will ever broadcast on any news program.

[2GOLD 0]

I've already made my feelings known on the Iraq war, however it is a bit disturbing that half the time you can find more up to date information on daily happenings in Iraq on the smartmarks board then mainstream corporate media outlets who would rather talk about Michael Jackson sneezing.

And what is the "information" that the "corporate media" is "covering up"?

-=Mike

Has nothing to do with "covering up information" I mean we can debate THAT issue at some other point, rather I am more referring to the 10 seconds an attack in Iraq is talked about compared to the headlining story of the Michael Jackson case, with fifteen or so legal experts discussing how his new haircut may or may not sway a jury....

Here is a news flash (pun intended) for you: even though there are a lot of people in America who dislike Bush, even they don't want to see half of their news program every night devoted to the latest Iraq attack, though it would be politically damaging to Bush for the networks to do so. People only have a stomach for a limited amount of that thing (both the violence and the propaganda).

 

And sad to say, a good chunk of our society is enthralled with all things celebrity and / or perverse, and Jacko combines the two in spades.

 

But I could turn your question around and ask why do the networks spend so little time focusing on the "good things" we're doing in Iraq, because though there have been obvious difficulties in rebuilding their infrastructure, there are plenty of happy stories to tell which none of us will ever broadcast on any news program.

 

I saw a story about an Iraqi girl who had been denied heart surgery while trapped under Saddam who recently was brought to the USA and had her heart repaired.

 

Other than that, not a damn thing.

[cbacon 0]

There are NO reports of anyone EVER finding ANY American-made chemical or bio-weapons in Iraq, before, during, or after. If you have ANY articles that prove that American Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, please produce them. Otherwise, please shut up about us arming them. There are far, far more worthy candidates for that scorn.

 

One can be supplied with raw materials [or money so the materials can be purchased elsewhere] to create weapons. If you're expecting them to find rifles and missles with the American flag stamped on them, you've got another thing coming. That's not how it works.

 

-----

And concerning being supplied with money to purchase said weapons:

 

Washington Post

 

Although I don't consider the WP a non-bias source, let's do the math they give us.

 

The voucher system... could be resold to oil companies or other buyers at profits of 10 to 35 cents per barrel.

 

Let's assume they're being bought at $0.35 a barrel:

 

* French: 11 million barrels. Total Cost: $3,850,000 respectively.

* Russian Total: 218 million barrels. Total Cost: $76,300,000 respectively.

 

The numbers are all under even half a billion. So then what of America's support?

Several American companies on the list, compiled from 13 documents kept by Hussein's vice president and oil minister, were given vouchers to purchase billions of dollars of oil at discounted prices. The U.S. companies are not named in the report because of privacy laws, U.S. officials said.

 

In regards to the Sandinista issue, i've since noticed your first two links are the exact same, and provide no real numbers or evidence to support the orignal deathtoll (15 000).

 

I shall quote everything this site had to say about the human rights abuses.

 

Lacking support from the population, Sandinista troops committed their worst human rights abuses on the Atlantic Coast, including the forcible relocation of 8,500 Miskito from their land to create free-fire zones for combatting the Contras. They also killed and imprisoned several indigenous people suspected of Contra collaboration. On two separate occasions in 1981 and 1982, Sandinista troops committed massacres in which dozens of indigenous people were killed and buried in common graves. [1] (http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Miskitoeng/part1.htm)

 

During the war Amnesty International and other groups reported that political prisoners in Sandinista prisons, such as in Las Tejas, were beaten, deprived of sleep and tortured with electric shocks. They were denied food and water and kept in dark cubicles that had a surface of less than one square meter, known as chiquitas ("little ones.") These cubicles were too small to sit up in and had no sanitation and almost no ventilation.

 

I fail to see anything within that site to support the deathtoll of 1000, let alone 15,000. The mass murder seems to be dreamed up or "fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion".

 

Like I said, I won't make excuses for the FLSN on part of the killings that DID happen, or the forced relocation and prison conditions. But this all is minimal compared to what the Contras committed and what the Somoza family had committed, both with American backing. Not to mention that the whole relocation was under-taken BECAUSE of Contra fighting in the area, how can you (America) support the Contras prior to the Atlantic problems because of FLSN attrocities, when the attrocities took place AFTER you provided support and resulted BECAUSE of such support?

 

Also, I think another part of that article deserves to be quoted:

 

In the mid-1980s, under pressure from human rights organisations and widespread international condemnation, the Sandinista government acknowledged errors in its dealings with the Atlantic Coast and successfully negotiated an end to the southern front of the Contra war. In fulfillment of the terms of that negotiation, the Nicaraguan National Assembly unanimously passed an Autonomy Law in 1987 that made Nicaragua the first American nation to recognise its multiethnic nature, guaranteeing the economic, cultural, linguistic and religious rights demanded by the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast.

 

The Reagan administration remained opposed to the Sandinistas, and continued to support the Contras. The administration also funnelled USD $11 million in support of an opposition party, and refused aid to the country after it was devastated by Hurricane Joan in October 1988.

 

Care to explain the reason for continued aid?

 

Hey, Communist Russia had all those ideals, too. Just because they list them doesn't mean that it was gonna work out exactly that way. Again, I've provided articles that talk about killings of political dissidents and the Indians. Providing their idealistic list and once again trying to shift the blame doesn't hide the fact that the Sandinistas weren't a good regieme, and that there was ample reason for them to be pushed out. The only problem was we chose the most ass-backwards way of doing it.

 

Wow, you do a piss poor job of defending them. + Cox and Forkum 'funny'

 

Do you have a better idea? Like, I dunno, supporting a Klepotratic Dictatorship that has committed far worse attrocities than the FSLN? Or perhaps supporting rebel groups that have also committed far worse attrocities than the FSLN and are hated by the majority of the populace?

 

Given the choice, I personally would go with the government that has granted equality for women, free unionisation for all workers and improved working conditions.

[Guest MikeSC]

There are NO reports of anyone EVER finding ANY American-made chemical or bio-weapons in Iraq, before, during, or after. If you have ANY articles that prove that American Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, please produce them. Otherwise, please shut up about us arming them. There are far, far more worthy candidates for that scorn.

One can be supplied with raw materials [or money so the materials can be purchased elsewhere] to create weapons. If you're expecting them to find rifles and missles with the American flag stamped on them, you've got another thing coming. That's not how it works.

 

Ah, so you know that there are American weapons there --- even though you can't actually prove it and even though we can say WHERE they DID come from, it doesn't really prove anything to you?

And concerning being supplied with money to purchase said weapons:

 

Washington Post

 

Although I don't consider the WP a non-bias source, let's do the math they give us.

Well, the Post is quite left, so no, they're not unbiased.

The voucher system... could be resold to oil companies or other buyers at profits of 10 to 35 cents per barrel.

Let's assume they're being bought at $0.35 a barrel:

 

* French: 11 million barrels. Total Cost: $3,850,000 respectively.

* Russian Total: 218 million barrels. Total Cost: $76,300,000 respectively.

 

The numbers are all under even half a billion. So then what of America's support?

That's pure PROFIT. Like it or not, a $76M profit is a big thing.

 

And, quite frankly, it could have been much more with the spikes in oil prices.

I fail to see anything within that site to support the deathtoll of 1000, let alone 15,000. The mass murder seems to be dreamed up or "fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion".

The funny part is that you TOTALLY believed that whole "100,000 dead Iraqis" crap last year.

 

Weird, huh?

Given the choice, I personally would go with the government that has granted equality for women, free unionisation for all workers and improved working conditions.

I'll go with the government the people chose over the one you choose, personally.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Back onto the topic of Iraq, here are some interesting tenets of the UIA platform (this was the winning "slate" in the Jan. 30 election):

 

-"a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq"

 

-"adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"

 

-A pledge "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects"

 

These tenets fly in the face of the free-market "reform" ushered in during Bremer's tenure in Iraq and also in the face of Iraq's recent IMF agreement. It will be interesting to see if any of these radical, left-wing measures actually make it into the constitution.

[Guest MikeSC]

Back onto the topic of Iraq, here are some interesting tenets of the UIA platform (this was the winning "slate" in the Jan. 30 election):

 

-"a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq"

 

-"adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"

 

-A pledge "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects"

 

These tenets fly in the face of the free-market "reform" ushered in during Bremer's tenure in Iraq and also in the face of Iraq's recent IMF agreement. It will be interesting to see if any of these radical, left-wing measures actually make it into the constitution.

If that is what they want to do, then yes, it will be done.

 

They run their country. And we'll forgive most of their debt on our side.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

EDIT:

 

Back onto the topic of Iraq, here are some interesting tenets of the UIA platform (this was the winning "slate" in the Jan. 30 election):

 

-"a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq"

 

-"adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"

 

-A pledge "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects"

 

These tenets fly in the face of the free-market "reform" ushered in during Bremer's tenure in Iraq and also in the face of Iraq's recent IMF agreement.  It will be interesting to see if any of these radical, left-wing measures actually make it into the constitution.

If that is what they want to do, then yes, it will be done.

 

GWB, four days after 1/30 election:

You don't set timetables

 

Tony Blair was also very dismissive of the idea of a timetable when asked about it after the election.

 

Expanding the public sector, keeping the oil, and debt cancellation are probably pipe dreams as well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Back onto the topic of Iraq, here are some interesting tenets of the UIA platform (this was the winning "slate" in the Jan. 30 election):

 

-"a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq"

 

-"adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"

 

-A pledge "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects"

 

These tenets fly in the face of the free-market "reform" ushered in during Bremer's tenure in Iraq and also in the face of Iraq's recent IMF agreement.  It will be interesting to see if any of these radical, left-wing measures actually make it into the constitution.

If that is what they want to do, then yes, it will be done.

 

We'll see, I guess. Sounds kinda commie to me.

Troops leaving a country is Commie? Sounds like the absolute OPPOSITE of Communism.

 

They can WANT to create a job for every Iraqi --- they'll realize that it is an impossible dream.

 

And asking for forgiveness of debts to dedicate money to economic projects is what every poor country does.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And asking for forgiveness of debts to dedicate money to economic projects is what every poor country does.

 

Are you aware of structural adjustment programmes? Poor countries may ask for debt cancellation, but what they usually get is a big, heaping plate full of neo-liberal reform, privatization, decreases in public spending, currency devaluation, & rising interest rates.

 

Debt cancellation is a decidedly leftist concept.

 

And on the oil thing--I think they would be referring to nationalization of the oil industry. Ruh-roh.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Troops leaving a country is Commie? Sounds like the absolute OPPOSITE of Communism.

 

communism (n)-A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

 

"Troops leaving a country" is the OPPOSITE (capitalization rules) of this?

[Guest MikeSC]

Back onto the topic of Iraq, here are some interesting tenets of the UIA platform (this was the winning "slate" in the Jan. 30 election):

 

-"a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq"

 

-"adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"

 

-A pledge "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects"

 

These tenets fly in the face of the free-market "reform" ushered in during Bremer's tenure in Iraq and also in the face of Iraq's recent IMF agreement.  It will be interesting to see if any of these radical, left-wing measures actually make it into the constitution.

If that is what they want to do, then yes, it will be done.

 

GWB, four days after 1/30 election:

You don't set timetables

 

Tony Blair was also very dismissive of the idea of a timetable when asked about it after the election.

 

Expanding the public sector, keeping the oil, and debt cancellation are probably pipe dreams as well.

We don't. The moment WE say we'll be leaving at "this point", violence will become obscene on that date.

 

Doesn't mean that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT won't want us to give them an idea when we'll leave.

"Troops leaving a country" is the OPPOSITE (capitalization rules) of this?

Judging by the Soviet Union, it is a DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE belief.

Are you aware of structural adjustment programmes? Poor countries may ask for debt cancellation, but what they usually get is a big, heaping plate full of neo-liberal reform, privatization, decreases in public spending, currency devaluation, & rising interest rates.

 

Debt cancellation is a decidedly leftist concept.

Because these poor countries need to get their economies fixed or they'll be in a never-ending circle of a need for debt forgiveness.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

That's pure PROFIT. Like it or not, a $76M profit is a big thing.

 

And, quite frankly, it could have been much more with the spikes in oil prices.

 

And the billions in profits he stood to gain from the Americans, yes.

 

Ah, so you know that there are American weapons there --- even though you can't actually prove it and even though we can say WHERE they DID come from, it doesn't really prove anything to you?

 

If you can point out the funding from one country is being used to by weaponry, the same can be pointed out of another country. Can you out-and out-deny America [in one way or another] filtered money to Saddam, and knew perfectly well what he had planned for it?

 

I'll go with the government the people chose over the one you choose, personally.

 

Um, yeah, the Sadnista's were democratically elected. I agree with you point. Do you even know what your posting anymore, old man?

[cbacon 0]

Also as a general comment to Mike and Justice (but mostly Justice since he's been more involved with the thread:

 

You claimed the oil-for-food program failed because Saddam was "fucking looting it". I replied that there's been zero evidence of that being the case. You then responded by posting links to something that I already agreed with, that the program was not well handled by the U.N. Dear god could your reading comprehension be any worse? It's nearing 4.0 on the Mike scale and I know your not THAT bad.....

[Guest MikeSC]

That's pure PROFIT. Like it or not, a $76M profit is a big thing.

 

And, quite frankly, it could have been much more with the spikes in oil prices.

And the billions in profits he stood to gain from the Americans, yes.

The Americans would have never dealt with Saddam. He simply put his money into countries that WOULD allow their loyalty to be bought and sold.

Ah, so you know that there are American weapons there --- even though you can't actually prove it and even though we can say WHERE they DID come from, it doesn't really prove anything to you?

If you can point out the funding from one country is being used to by weaponry, the same can be pointed out of another country. Can you out-and out-deny America [in one way or another] filtered money to Saddam, and knew perfectly well what he had planned for it?

Not since the 1980's. I can state, definitively, that France gave him a ton of shit RECENTLY.

I'll go with the government the people chose over the one you choose, personally.

Um, yeah, the Sadnista's were democratically elected. I agree with you point. Do you even know what your posting anymore, old man?

Seeing as how you posted,

Given the choice, I personally would go with the government that has granted equality for women, free unionisation for all workers and improved working conditions.

you are the one who needs to figure out what the hell you're talking about, skippy.

You claimed the oil-for-food program failed because Saddam was "fucking looting it". I replied that there's been zero evidence of that being the case.

Provided one ignores Kojo and the actions of the company Cotecna Inspection SA (they were in charge of of inspecting Oil-For-Food shipments and, considering how much money Kojo made from this and that there is so much money missing, there is a problem)...

 

And the GAO report (you know, a group NOT RUN by the UN) indicating that Saddam squirreled away 10.1B in revenues...

 

And that Saddam had the power to pick his buyers and suppliers...

 

And that it was run SO poorly that in 2000, the UN BEGGED Saddam to continue pumping oil because they had 1,000 employees who had jobs because of Iraq's oil...

 

And that the $111B (or so --- nobody seems to have an exact number) generated by it never seemed to trickle down to the Iraqi citizens, while Saddam still built more palaces and attempted to buy yellowcake in Africa...

 

Try reading something for a change:

http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=homepage

 

Saddam bribed officials to support him in the UN. Saddam stole the money meant for his people and used the money to bribe corrupt Europeans to fellate him.

 

And you continue to defend him.

 

Why not spend 5 seconds and try to learn something for once? Your grasp of false info is impressive --- but I prefer reality.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Also as a general comment to Mike and Justice (but mostly Justice since he's been more involved with the thread:

 

You claimed the oil-for-food program failed because Saddam was "fucking looting it". I replied that there's been zero evidence of that being the case. You then responded by posting links to something that I already agreed with, that the program was not well handled by the U.N. Dear god could your reading comprehension be any worse? It's nearing 4.0 on the Mike scale and I know your not THAT bad.....

At the moment he's still attributed with 4.4 Billion of it by the GAO. As the UN was too innept to do their job the first time, why should I trust them to do an able job of fact checking, especially if they aren't even checking out very legitimate claims because they are connected to the SG's son?

 

Secondly, in your previous statement attacking the WP, you failed to realize that those kickbacks were to highly influential individuals. Again, Sevon got over $13,000,000 in vouchers alone, and he ran the program. That doesn't seem like a massive kickback to you? If G.W. got one of those from someone like Saddam Hussein, he would have been immediately impeached and probably shot by the general public. Yet, for you, this is not an outrage. You bitch about 'slick oilcrats' bribing G.W. through campaign funds, yet pure, unadulterated profit in the millions doesn't bother you? Hypocrit.

Edited February 27, 2005 by Justice

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, he bitched about Cheney and Halliburton, but Kofi's SON leaving a consultancy gig for a company ONE MONTH before the UN hires the company to oversee Oil-For-Food shipment doesn't even warrant a mention.

 

I'd suggest Bacon read anything he can find from Claudia Rosset --- who is one of the only journalists actually studying the story --- but I know he wouldn't.

-=Mike