The OAO Iraq Debate thread

[cbacon 0]

If you bothered reading up on your own sources, you would have seen that the money the GAO suggests Saddam got came from two sources:

 

1. Illegal oil sales that the sanctions banned (nothing there I would define as "looting").

2. Surcharges to companies who were involved in the program ("looting" may be an accurate way to describe how he dealt with those companies, but that's money he's taking from corporations who are well aware that he's getting that money, it's not money he's stealing from Iraqi citizens).

 

The GAO is, by the way, an arm of the U.S. government, and so to take what it says at face value regarding an issue that the U.S. government has been shown repeatedly to be misinformed about (Iraq) would be unwise. The GAO's report on the oil-for-food program contains some information that would at best be described as "questionable usage of figures" and would probably more accurately be described as a deliberate attempt to misinform.

 

Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue with you. You guys refer to sources that don't even back up what you say and resort to petty (and inaccurate) insults in lieu of having a factually supported position. Continue believing whatever you want, I'm done with this argument.

[Justice 0]

1. Illegal oil sales that the sanctions banned (nothing there I would define as "looting").

2. Surcharges to companies who were involved in the program ("looting" may be an accurate way to describe how he dealt with those companies, but that's money he's taking from corporations who are well aware that he's getting that money, it's not money he's stealing from Iraqi citizens).

 

 

Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue with you. You guys refer to sources that don't even back up what you say and resort to petty (and inaccurate) insults in lieu of having a factually supported position. Continue believing whatever you want, I'm done with this argument.

Actually, um, if you read up on the sources, it's 4.4 from Oil for Food and 5.7 Billon seperately for smuggling. If you are going to try and call me out on numbers, then please, at least get them right.

 

Here's the exact quote:

 

The GAO, in its “Observations on the Oil for Food Program” report highlights (submitted as testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 7, 2004), noted that the 661 Committee did not have oversight of the majority of missing revenues ($5.7 billion) that were attributed to smuggling. Instead, the GAO found that investigations concerning 661 Committee responsibility should focus on the remaining $4.4 billion attributable to kickbacks on humanitarian aid contracts and surcharges on oil sales.

 

Oil for Food Facts

 

He looted it of 4.4 Billion dollars. How he did or not doesn't matter, whether he stole it from a vault or bought sub-standard goods, the fact remains he illegally profited $4,400,000,000 from it. I wonder why the UN never noticed it before. Perhaps it was because Sevon was getting kickbacks from Saddam? Hm...

 

The GAO is, by the way, an arm of the U.S. government, and so to take what it says at face value regarding an issue that the U.S. government has been shown repeatedly to be misinformed about (Iraq) would be unwise. The GAO's report on the oil-for-food program contains some information that would at best be described as "questionable usage of figures" and would probably more accurately be described as a deliberate attempt to misinform.

 

Huh, and the UN instantly clears any possible involvement through kickbacks with a tyrannical dictator. Huh, why would that seem questionable? It's funny how you don't question the UN despite the incredible amount of scandals it's up against, but you'll consistantly find ways of manipulating the facts so that the US is always shat upon. Bravo.

 

Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue with you. You guys refer to sources that don't even back up what you say and resort to petty (and inaccurate) insults in lieu of having a factually supported position. Continue believing whatever you want, I'm done with this argument.

 

I've given you sources, and when presented with their facts you try to dodge around them to fulfil your inane argument. Go ahead, take your ball and go home. Perhaps you can find a terrorist attack to justify somewhere.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

UIA tenet:

a timetable for withdrawal of the multinational forces in Iraq

 

MikeSC:

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

 

George W. Bush:

You don't set timetables

 

MikeSC:

We don't.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're on a roll with the consistency today!

 

UIA tenet:

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

 

All MikeSC:

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

 

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

 

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.

 

So they want a timetable--and it will be done if that's what they want! But we don't set timetables.

 

And they want debt cancellation--and it will be done if that's what they want! But poor countries need their economies "fixed" as rich countries and neo-liberal financial institutions see fit.

 

Oh yeah. And I'm sure they'll get that nationalized oil industry they want.

 

If that is what they want to do--YES!--it will be done!

[Guest MikeSC]

WE (the US) do not set timetables. Our timetable is "We'll leave when the job is done".

 

Does not mean the country we are presently in WON'T ASK FOR A TIMETABLE. They WANT one --- they will be disappointed when one is not given.

 

And the US forgives debts ALL of the damned time. It's not an UNUSUAL event for us to forgive a country its debt towards us. It doesn't mean that the country shouldn't be expected to make some fundamental changes in their economic structure.

 

Quite frankly, a lot of "poor" countries have economies that are in the usual failed state-controlled model --- a model that has never demonstrated an ability to actually generate enough growth to avoid the problems that drove them into debt in the first place.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WE (the US) do not set timetables. Our timetable is "We'll leave when the job is done".

And we're wondering why we're so disliked.

 

Even if we don't announce a timetable for obvious reasons (i.e. terrorists pop out of the woodwork the day after) it'd be nice if I didn't feel like Washington was really flying blind without one.

[2GOLD 0]

WE (the US) do not set timetables. Our timetable is "We'll leave when the job is done".

And we're wondering why we're so disliked.

 

Even if we don't announce a timetable for obvious reasons (i.e. terrorists pop out of the woodwork the day after) it'd be nice if I didn't feel like Washington was really flying blind without one.

 

Yeah, they are kind of in a damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

If they do, the terrorist know exactly when to start making matters even worse.

If they don't, they look like they are flying blind.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It doesn't mean that the country shouldn't be expected to make some fundamental changes in their economic structure.

 

Quite frankly, a lot of "poor" countries have economies that are in the usual failed state-controlled model

So "freedom" doesn't include the right to structure your economy as you see fit?

[Guest MikeSC]

It doesn't mean that the country shouldn't be expected to make some fundamental changes in their economic structure.

 

Quite frankly, a lot of "poor" countries have economies that are in the usual failed state-controlled model

So "freedom" doesn't include the right to structure your economy as you see fit?

If WE are forgiving the debt, WE get to set the terms. And keeping them with the same economy that never works is an exceptionally bad idea.

And we're wondering why we're so disliked.

 

Even if we don't announce a timetable for obvious reasons (i.e. terrorists pop out of the woodwork the day after) it'd be nice if I didn't feel like Washington was really flying blind without one.

Our timetable to leave Japan was...when?

 

How about Germany?

-=Mike

...That's right --- "When the job is done"...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Economic liberalization & structural adjustment have not been wildly successful in eliminating global poverty--the process tends to make life harder for the people of the "adjusting" country--the same people who don't have any say in the agreements with the creditor countries or the international financial institutions.

 

I do, however, think it's great that we (as well as several European creditor countries) have forgiven much of the Iraqi debt. I also think, though, that it might have been better for them to simply take control of their own economy instead of having it controlled by outside, First World forces.

[cbacon 0]

I know I said I was done but I forgot this:

 

According to a Senate report from 1994, between 1985 and 1990 the American government willingly allowed American corporations to sell the following to Saddam Hussein:

 

- bacillus anthracis (ie. anthrax)

- clostridium botulinum

- histoplasma capsulatum

- brucella melitensis

- clostridium perfringens

- eschericia coli

 

Feel free to look those up if you want some idea of what the U.S. was selling to Saddam. That list doesn't include various genetic materials shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Comission or all the various technologies that the government knew were going to be used in the production of WMD's.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know I said I was done but I forgot this:

 

According to a Senate report from 1994, between 1985 and 1990 the American government willingly allowed American corporations to sell the following to Saddam Hussein:

 

- bacillus anthracis (ie. anthrax)

- clostridium botulinum

- histoplasma capsulatum

- brucella melitensis

- clostridium perfringens

- eschericia coli

 

Feel free to look those up if you want some idea of what the U.S. was selling to Saddam. That list doesn't include various genetic materials shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Comission or all the various technologies that the government knew were going to be used in the production of WMD's.

Wow, you mean 14 yrs ago, we gave Saddam weaponry until it became obvious to us what he was doing, and then we stopped?

 

DAMN US!

 

It's a shame so few others followed suit, eh?

 

And, hate to break it to you, any country can claim that the assorted viruses are being used for researching possible vaccines and cures.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

*Points to the above sources*

 

Again, look at the size of our contribution in comparison to just about every other country. This is a straw man.

 

We've never found any weapons with American material, despite the fact that we sold them some material way back when. I believe all the weapons we've ever found were made by Iraq, in Iraq, out of Iraqi materials. Why does this matter? Because it shows that our help to Iraq meant little to nothing; his WMD programs were largely already running full tilt, and his massive stockpiles were homegrown, not American made. Our token help had little impact on his stay in power or his military.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Economic liberalization & structural adjustment have not been wildly successful in eliminating global poverty--the process tends to make life harder for the people of the "adjusting" country--the same people who don't have any say in the agreements with the creditor countries or the international financial institutions.

You're kidding me.

 

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

 

Economic liberalization has been largely responsible for the the increase in the standard of living!

 

Proof:

 

Asia

Eastern Bloc

 

Gah~!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any. I would like for someone who has claimed that "democracy" & "freedom" were justifications (for the Iraq war, made by the Bush administration) on par with the "WMD" & "security" justifications to respond to the following:

 

Mar. 6, news conference. Bush stated that there was:

a single question:  Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by 1441, or has it not?

 

Ari Fleischer (cited by Adams & Huband, Financial Times, April 12-13, 2003) stated that Iraq's possesion of WMD:

is what this war was about and is about

 

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw (cited by Sanger & Barringer, March 7, 2003 NYT) announced that if Saddam disarmed:

we accept that the government of Iraq stays in place

 

Colin Powell (March 6, 2003, NYT):

The question simply is:  has Saddam Hussein made a strategic, political decision to comply with the UNSC resolutions & to get rid of his WMD?  That's it in a nutshell..That's the question.

 

Powell (March 23, 2003, NYT) stated that Iraq:

was being attacked because it had violated its international obligations under its 1991 surrender agreement, which required the disclosure & disarmament of its dangerous weapons.

 

Condi Rice (Foreign Affairs, January-February 2000, Mearsheimer/Walt):

if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Economic liberalization & structural adjustment have not been wildly successful in eliminating global poverty--the process tends to make life harder for the people of the "adjusting" country--the same people who don't have any say in the agreements with the creditor countries or the international financial institutions.

You're kidding me.

 

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

 

Economic liberalization has been largely responsible for the the increase in the standard of living!

 

Proof:

 

Asia

Eastern Bloc

 

Gah~!

Obviously it's preferable to a pure command economy--but stuctural adjustment & liberalization have worsened standards of living in some third world countries because they decrease access to government services like health care & education.

 

I'm certainly not arguing that liberalization is a bad thing--just that it should be tempered with some concern for quality of life.

 

Also, if liberalization is all wine & roses, why are there so many intellectual & grassroots movements against it in the Third World?

[cbacon 0]

Generally when you change your mind, you say something like "Okay, I know we were doing this before, but now we realize, that was wrong; here's what we're doing now." You don't just act like you were implimenting the new policy all along and there was never any change, 1984-style.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Economic liberalization & structural adjustment have not been wildly successful in eliminating global poverty--the process tends to make life harder for the people of the "adjusting" country--the same people who don't have any say in the agreements with the creditor countries or the international financial institutions.

You're kidding me.

 

That's so wrong, on so many levels.

 

Economic liberalization has been largely responsible for the the increase in the standard of living!

 

Proof:

 

Asia

Eastern Bloc

 

Gah~!

Obviously it's preferable to a pure command economy--but stuctural adjustment & liberalization have worsened standards of living in some third world countries because they decrease access to government services like health care & education.

 

I'm certainly not arguing that liberalization is a bad thing--just that it should be tempered with some concern for quality of life.

 

Also, if liberalization is all wine & roses, why are there so many intellectual & grassroots movements against it in the Third World?

Because theyre desperate for anything.

 

Show me a system that works better than economic liberalization. Quote stats.

 

You can't

 

Economic liberalization works. It's the people and institutions that hamper it.

 

We're the problem, not the process

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Because theyre desperate for anything.

 

Elaborate?

 

Economic liberalization works. It's the people and institutions that hamper it.

 

I would agree with that, SJ.

[Guest fk teale]

Generally when you change your mind, you say something like "Okay, I know we were doing this before, but now we realize, that was wrong; here's what we're doing now." You don't just act like you were implimenting the new policy all along and there was never any change, 1984-style.

For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

September 21 2004

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Because theyre desperate for anything.

 

Elaborate?

 

Economic liberalization works. It's the people and institutions that hamper it.

 

I would agree with that, SJ.

Desperation and hopeless times allow marginal extreme groups to gain power (look at history).

 

Glad we agree on the latter statement.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Because theyre desperate for anything.

 

Elaborate?

 

Economic liberalization works. It's the people and institutions that hamper it.

 

I would agree with that, SJ.

Desperation and hopeless times allow marginal extreme groups to gain power (look at history).

 

Glad we agree on the latter statement.

I wasn't trying to argue that liberalization is bad--but that liberalization should not be forced or undertaken on anyone's terms other than the country in question's.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Sometimes BOS, intervention is necessary. Just that, when you do intervene, better have it thought all the way through and have the cajones to stick to it no matter what the initial symptons are.

[cbacon 0]

I know I said I was done but I forgot this:

 

According to a Senate report from 1994, between 1985 and 1990 the American government willingly allowed American corporations to sell the following to Saddam Hussein:

 

- bacillus anthracis (ie. anthrax)

- clostridium botulinum

- histoplasma capsulatum

- brucella melitensis

- clostridium perfringens

- eschericia coli

 

Feel free to look those up if you want some idea of what the U.S. was selling to Saddam. That list doesn't include various genetic materials shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Comission or all the various technologies that the government knew were going to be used in the production of WMD's.

Wow, you mean 14 yrs ago, we gave Saddam weaponry until it became obvious to us what he was doing, and then we stopped?

 

DAMN US!

 

It's a shame so few others followed suit, eh?

 

And, hate to break it to you, any country can claim that the assorted viruses are being used for researching possible vaccines and cures.

-=Mike

The Iran-Iraq war, during which Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, took place from 1980 to 1988. The gassing of the Kurds in Iraq took place in 1988. The U.S. was not only selling various diseases and other WMD material to Iraq during this time, but continued to do so far a couple years afterward. They stopped once they realized what he was doing? No, please try again.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know I said I was done but I forgot this:

 

According to a Senate report from 1994, between 1985 and 1990 the American government willingly allowed American corporations to sell the following to Saddam Hussein:

 

- bacillus anthracis (ie. anthrax)

- clostridium botulinum

- histoplasma capsulatum

- brucella melitensis

- clostridium perfringens

- eschericia coli

 

Feel free to look those up if you want some idea of what the U.S. was selling to Saddam. That list doesn't include various genetic materials shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Comission or all the various technologies that the government knew were going to be used in the production of WMD's.

Wow, you mean 14 yrs ago, we gave Saddam weaponry until it became obvious to us what he was doing, and then we stopped?

 

DAMN US!

 

It's a shame so few others followed suit, eh?

 

And, hate to break it to you, any country can claim that the assorted viruses are being used for researching possible vaccines and cures.

-=Mike

The Iran-Iraq war, during which Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, took place from 1980 to 1988. The gassing of the Kurds in Iraq took place in 1988. The U.S. was not only selling various diseases and other WMD material to Iraq during this time, but continued to do so far a couple years afterward. They stopped once they realized what he was doing? No, please try again.

Actually, Bush I put a halt to all of that.

 

You know, the guy who was President when all of this became public knowledge.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

He was on the inside from '81 to '89 as vice president. Not to mention other top administration officials who were part of the Reagan years who are part of Bush II.

[Justice 0]

He was on the inside from '81 to '89 as vice president. Not to mention other top administration officials who were part of the Reagan years who are part of Bush II.

Perhaps it's just me, but even if we admit to mistakes in supporting Saddam against Iran (As minor support as it was), aren't we allowed to correct our mistakes?

[Guest MikeSC]

He was on the inside from '81 to '89 as vice president. Not to mention other top administration officials who were part of the Reagan years who are part of Bush II.

And I'm not sure a LESS relevant point has been mentioned recently.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

The American government isn't correcting a mistake and has yet to admit to one. Their simply re-affirming what they sent Saddam in to do in the first place.

 

And sorry doesn't bring back the dead.