Gotta Love Bush

[Tanerus]

President Bush announced plans to create a permanent lunar space station. President Bush said if the lunar space station works out, they'll build one on the moon.
- 01.20.04
_________
bah pic wont work... still a good quote tho

[Aerothas]

bush senior = omg iraq sucks, then otm to space exploration
george w = omg i got saddam, otm to space exploration

[Elidroth]

President Bush announced plans to create a permanent lunar space station. President Bush said if the lunar space station works out, they'll build one on the moon.
- 01.20.04
_________
bah pic wont work... still a good quote tho

Please post the actual quote, with source.. or feel free to take your seat left of the aisle with the rest of the short bus riders.

[Coral]

Please post the actual quote, with source.. or feel free to take your seat left of the aisle with the rest of the short bus riders.

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

You Republican Jackass.

Sorry, you elected--I'm sorry, appointed by judicial coup--a total moron.

[Elidroth]

3 years later and you Democrat babies STILL can't get over the fact that your boy lost.

[Coral]

3 years later and you Democrat babies STILL can't get over the fact that your boy lost.

Bet those damn Native Americans feel the same way.

[Vidmer]

Hrrm,
Coral hates Bush, is abusive to people, yells a lot and is lives in the northeast.

OMG he is Howard Dean! YEEAARRGHH!!

[Lexoon]

zing!

[Lola]

"I'm the master of low expectations."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

How do I love thee, politicians, let me count the ways!

[Zarwin]

Please post the actual quote, with source.. or feel free to take your seat left of the aisle with the rest of the short bus riders.

I am not a big fan of finding every little error in our articulately challenged President’s speeches, yet I do concern myself with the constant flow of lies flowing out of the Bush Administration. It amazes me how big of a deal people made when President Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, because when Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq the public outcry was far less. I am not sure how many people Clinton killed with his sex scandal, yet Bush’s war scandal has claimed over 500 American servicemen’s deaths, 97 deaths of coalition troops, and well over 13,000 Iraqi deaths (estimated in October 03 - http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html). Yet this is just one lie of many lies that Bush has told the American people in his years as President and the funny part is that he still has supporters.

Some quotes from a "creditable" source on the issue.


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html



Q Sir, in honor of your guest, I'll ask it in Australian, if that's all right. (Laughter.) Is there a possibility that you may never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how would that square with your rationale for going to war?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- the question is about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The United States -- United Nations Security Council voted 1441, which made the declaration it had weapons of mass destruction. It's well-known it had weapons of mass destruction. And we've also got to recognize that he spent 14 years hiding weapons of mass destruction. I mean, he spent an entire decade making sure that inspectors would never find them. Iraq's the size of the state of California. It's got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes. We'll find them. And it's just going to be a matter of time to do so.

- May 3, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503-1.html



Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

George W. Bush - January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


Q Mr. President, a year ago you said the dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Are you still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, given what Dr. Kay has said?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me first compliment Dr. Kay for his work. I appreciate his willingness to go to Iraq and I appreciate his willingness to gather facts. And the Iraq Survey Group will continue to gather facts.

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn't have any.

There is no doubt in my mind the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. America is more secure, the world is safer, and the people of Iraq are free.

-January 27, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html

[Zarxen]

I am not a big fan of finding every little error in our articulately challenged President’s speeches, yet I do concern myself with the constant flow of lies flowing out of the Bush Administration. It amazes me how big of a deal people made when President Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, because when Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq the public outcry was far less. I am not sure how many people Clinton killed with his sex scandal, yet Bush’s war scandal has claimed over 500 American servicemen’s deaths, 97 deaths of coalition troops, and well over 13,000 Iraqi deaths (estimated in October 03 - http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html). Yet this is just one lie of many lies that Bush has told the American people in his years as President and the funny part is that he still has supporters.

Some quotes from a "creditable" source on the issue.

Well said, I question the same issues. I find politics my side of the border in a somewhat similar state. Allthough politics here in Canada aren't facing the same repercussions due to war, the liberals are a bunch of outright liars, and I really dislike dealing with political people that lie to the public.

[waright]

While I think bush is a psyco religous nutball, I think things sometimes happen for the best. He kinda had his wet dream of revenging his father handed to him with 911 and my guess (and hope) is that 10 years from now some long term issues will get resolved. I can't imagine things being worse than if a liberal was in office and totaly fucked up in the opposite directon of bush, not that I know that would have happend but I would not have been suprised. Doing little or nothing would have been awful.

I find it funny how Clinton's gets none of the credit for his fuckups or lies (no, not the stupid sex stuff, I kinda though that was funny).

In 911 we had ~3000 americans die in one day. No one really will ever know that in the 2 years or so after 911 we have adverted a similar disaster due to our psyco president, if so even 3000 servicemen is cheep at the price of lives. I know that with how easy it is to do damage to ppl and places if one buys into the argument that bush has done more harm that good at this point those same people would have to think its unbelievable we have not had another 911. I do think it likely that at least some of terrorist resources have been deverted to iraq and in general I would rather stupid people blow things up in other contries than in mine. If in 5 years iraq is a stable democracy of any type (have no idea how likely that is) then there is a good chance for real progress in that region.

I still think we are better off that some other contries wrt our top leader, at least weather you love or hate bush he will last a max of 5 more years.


My Guess is gore would have said "lets be nice and say we love all people of the middle east and give them lots of money and hope they start liking us back". Sounds like when I was in 1st grade and gave the bully candy every day so he would not hit me, guess what, after a few weeks he started hitting me again. When I sicked my older brother on him he never hit me again.

[Tarissa]

anything that shits the bed on fundamentalists is a-ok by me.

nothing quite drives people to kill quite like brainwashed followers of a religion. its like mass hypnosis

[Eomer]

I like how it goes from "OH MY GOD HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT HE CAN USE IN 45 MINUTES" to "THERE IS NO DOUBT HE WAS A GATHERING THREAT, HE COULD REALLY HURT US IN LIKE 10 YEARS!"

[Elidroth]

I won't argue on the WMD issue. It was a stupid thing to hang your entire motivation upon. Saddam was a bad guy.. so him being removed is fine..

I have no doubts honestly that the guy was pursuing WMD's..

[Eomer]

It's hard to say though. David Kay himself is saying that it looks like Iraq was destroying their chemical and bio weapons secretly, so that they could get rid of the expense of maintaining them but still Saddam could swing his dick around pretending he had them. That was obviously not the smartest choice of action.

Of course, I am sure Saddam would have loved to get a nuke into his hot little hands. But it looks like they had given up on that as well. I don't doubt that if Pakistan walked up and said "trade you 10 million barrels of oil for a nuke" that Saddam would have jumped at the chance.

And I also agree that Saddam needed to get gone, it's just the timing and way that it was done that will haunt the US for a long time.

[Lola]

anything that shits the bed on fundamentalists is a-ok by me.

nothing quite drives people to kill quite like brainwashed followers of a religion. its like mass hypnosis

Are you referring to the Arab/Islamic Fundamentalists here, or the American/Christian Fundamentalists? Or both? =p

[Lydia]

Thats what I absolutely love most in the Iraq debate...that people just can't get it in their head, Iraq was the only state in the whole area with a government that was not based on religion.

There were no fundamentalists in Iraq's government a year ago, I am almost sure there will be fundamentalists in Iraq's government in two years.

[Torrid]

I guess no religion makes it easier to gas your own people. Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel's documentaries on Saddam, then come back and tell me removing him was wrong.

Bush may be bad, but Gore's woman tried to censor the music I listen to. They also want to ban firearms. Maybe if Democrats wern't so busy trying to take away my consitutional rights, I'd be more inclined to sway their way.

Of course I can't fucking stand A) rich people, because its impossible to contribute enough to society enough to have earned that much money, and B) raping the environment.

Which is why I don't vote.

[Qaediin]

Torrid=I. The Bush administration has taken away more constitutional rights than any president in the past 120 plus years. I think Dubya has the right intentions but his cronies around him yank his chain when they want something.

[Fenudwin]

Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel'sI don't believe anything I see on TV, it's only what they WANT us to see. My favorite example of this is Waco, TX. I saw it live, it was a grenade the police launched in that started the fire, not the people inside, but you'll never see that on TV again.

As for voting, I always do write in votes, "eliminate this government position", "pay all government jobs minimum wage", etc. Fen

[waright]

I don't believe anything I see on TV, it's only what they WANT us to see. My favorite example of this is Waco, TX. I saw it live, it was a grenade the police launched in that started the fire, not the people inside, but you'll never see that on TV again.

Are you sure it was the police, since you did see it on TV......

[Torrid]

The patriot act and banning heavy metal and rap music are two different things. Hopefully they'll vote not to renew that un-patriotic piece of shit though.

[Zappo]

nt

[Tarissa]

Thats what I absolutely love most in the Iraq debate...that people just can't get it in their head, Iraq was the only state in the whole area with a government that was not based on religion.

There were no fundamentalists in Iraq's government a year ago, I am almost sure there will be fundamentalists in Iraq's government in two years.

My impression is that it took a hell of a lot of killing to get THAT so-called religion-free government in Iraq.

I am speaking more specifically about the entire area -- it's just an explosive mixture with religions battling it out like middle-aged feudal lords.

It's not that I'm saying religion is the source of all evil in the world -- I think the line of Soviet dictators has proven that one. But it sure does give evil an excuse to breed, if I can use such an irresponsibly final word like evil in this case.

[Eomer]

Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel's documentaries on Saddam, then come back and tell me removing him was wrong.

There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid. The ends do not justify the means. And giving the world and the UN the middle finger and going ahead with the war, and then 8 months later coming back and asking for debt relief for Iraq, military help, and election help from the UN is NOT the right way to do it.

[Vidmer]

There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid.

I've seen many people say similar things. What is the right way to go about removing dictators?

[Lola]

I've seen many people say similar things. What is the right way to go about removing dictators?

Send Vidle over for an evening, with threats that more are to follow if they don't abdicate!

[Torrid]

The problem is, the UN is too pussy to enforce their own fucking rules. Saddam blatently breaks serveral, and the UN does nothing. So we did. It sends the wrong message when you ignore blatent treaty violations.

Frankly, nations who give a shit about human rights should not leave people like Saddam in power. Doing nothing is exactly what evil wants. Good needs to stop being stupid.

While I agree Bush could have handled the situation better, and missed several opportunities to be the "bigger man," I am glad the people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.

[Zarwin]

people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.

but now they are being ruled by another psychopath....

[Eomer]

Hey, I agree that it's good for damn near everyone that Saddam is gone. But believe it or not, there are worse dictators out there doing worse things, and nothing will be done about them. It's nice to get all idealistic and say we won't let any governments abuse their own citizens, but unfortunately that would mean being at war with a dozen countries at a time.

Not to mention that if your main goal was humanitarian, the hundreds of billions that will eventually spent in Iraq would probably have helped an order of magnitude more people if spent on food and medicine for the tens of millions of people starving and dieing every year in Africa.

[Vidmer]

You didn't even come close to answering my question.

Is your solution to this problem simply that since we can't help all we should help none? That we shouldn't prioritize help? To me it seems like you just want us to sit on our thumbs and hope these dictators will just "magicaly" disapear.

As a side note a one time cash contribution will not help africa in any way shape or form. If anything it may make them even more dependant on the West and further hinder necessary political, economic and cultural reforms.

[Eomer]

That we shouldn't prioritize help?

Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list. And I don't think you should just throw money at Africa, but like it or not, they could use an awful lot of help. Most countries can't even be bothered to relax drug patents so they can access cheaper generic medicines, let alone give them significant monetary help. Yet it's possible to spend hundreds of billions on a largely discretionary war.

[Vidmer]

Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list.

That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.

As for Africa I believe the saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" is appropriate. Handouts will not cure poverty in Africa anymore then it does in the US.

Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.

[Torrid]

Its the US's refusual to budge that is causing 3rd world nations to walk out of discussions on getting drugs in the hands of those who need, actually. Capitalism at work.

I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.

[Tarissa]

i think that sentiment is in the right place torrid, but in overlord run parts of the world, who is going to enforce who actually uses said equipment? and what in the hell do you farm in africa, i really have no idea.

i think the real foundation of a nation is its government, which must be constructed with at least some form of economic model that doesn't rely too heavily on one thing (see: banana republics)

[Andriana Duskrose]

Bush is alright, but I prefer women who shav... Oh wait a second... Nevermind.

[Lydia]

This thread is getting more and more ignorant. Just repeating old phrases over and over.


That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.

I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to starvation that would change.


Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc.

Have you ever wondered where some of the products we use come from? Starving people don't farm coffee for themselves.
The people who rule those countries care very little about their people. They want wealth and power. So they sell us coffee, bananas, ananas, tropic woods, to buy weapons from us. On other products, that we can produce ourselves, we put high trade tax to protect our own interrests.
On top of that we export our own waste to those countries, so they can pollute theirs.
We live on top of the foodchain there. The situation in africa, etc is not changing, because we are pretty happy with it.


For Vidmer: I'd define the "right" way to remove a dictator, as the best way to remove a dictator. Quite a lot of people would think it a good heuristic to define "best" as "least people harmed", maybe putting a second value on "least innocent people harmed". If someone agrees to that definition, I highly doubt that the war was the "right" way.

IF you define "best" as "least of our own people harmed" with a second value on "minimizing the complete cost of operation", then the war might valued differently.



I personally see little wrong in what I see to be the reason for the war: The cost of stationing military around Iraq to keep Iraq from becoming a threat again, was too high to sustain over years and years. The area had to be protected because the western world needs the oil there. So to minimize the costs and to still keep the oil, Iraq had to be invaded.
If you seriously think oil was not the most important reason why the war took part, send some gratulation cards to the media; your brainwash was a success.

[Lydia]

Oh just a short add-on.

I personally am a person used to luxury. I use cloth that is made with child labor, I eat food that is produced by people who are starving just because they produce it. I use electronic devices and other luxury goods that are produced in a way that brings on a major climatic change with massive effects on the world. I drive a car, well knowing that the terrorism in the world is almost exclusively funded by the profit on oil trade.

Knowing all this, I am still currently not willing to change my way of living.

I am even happy the US invaded Iraq and even more happy that I don't have to pay for it. That still does not mean I believe the US moved in there to "help" the iraqui people.

[Eomer]

Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.

My bad, I guess I did. There is no "right" way to remove a dictator, really. At least not realistically. But there ARE better and worse ways, and pissing off nearly the entire world while in the process of doing it is probably not one of the better ways. Like I said, I agree that Saddam had to go sooner or later. But the timing and manner of this war was based solely on politics and oppurtunism, nothing more.


Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.

So what you are saying is, it's more important to save 20-30 million people from an admittedly brutal dictator, than it is to help an entire continent survive from disease, starvation, and civil war? Just because the people in Africa are supposedly free? How do you exercise freedom when you are born with AIDS and dead before your first birthday. How do you exercise freedom when *insert another tragic commonplace thing in Africa here*? Not to mention that many in Africa are also not "free", what with all the warlords, rebels, and militias running around.


I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.

It's not as simple as that. For one thing, most of Africa was more or less taken over by various European powers. Most of their valuable farm land was owned by rich white farmers (see Zimbabwee or however you spell it) and passed down through the generations (also see Zimbabwee for a perfect example of how NOT to redistribute land). Most of their resources were or are getting raped from the land while the people see little benefit (see Nigeria and it's oil), not even jobs to extract their own wealth. It's tough to develop your nation's economy when it's rife with civil war, disease, and starvation. And your three neighbours are all on the verge of collapse and civil war, and might just happen to decide to fuck with you will they are at it (see the Congo).

Not to mention that most of the world's current "developed" economies got to where they are not only through making enough goods and food for themselves, but also by selling them to other countries. Problem is, as they passed through the door they locked it behind them, and have spent the past 100 years adding more locks. Hundreds of billions are spent every year by developed nations to subsidize their own farmers, thereby making third world farmers completely unable to compete on the market. And there is trade barrier after trade barrier after trade barrier. Of course, the developed countries are perfectly happy to talk "free trade" as long as they don't lose jobs to China/India/whatevercountryisinvoguetocomplainabout.

Yes, they have made a lot of their own problems. That doesn't mean we don't have some sort of obligation to help. And judging from how eager the US was to "help" Iraqi's, you would think it would be willing to do the same in Africa. But it was like pulling teeth to even get a few dozen marines into Liberia, when both the rebels and the government were asking for it.

[Elidroth]

The war was about 4 things..

1) Oil - I don't understand how people see this as 'bad'. Those same people screaming about how 'we don't need your oil war' are the same that piss and moan about gas prices being over $2/gal. Protecting or developing our oil interests makes our economy better. I just wish the administration would have said so up front.

2) Presense - I believe in some part the war in Iraq intended to put the world on notice after 9/11. It basically said 'We're not going to take shit from anyone.' and in no small part was telling 'Lil Kim' in North Korea to sit the fuck down and shut up or you're next.

3) Retaliation - I DO believe Bush wanted to kick down Saddam's door after he plotted to kill George H. Certainly not the right reason considering his position as leader of the strongest free world nation, even if I do understand it a bit. It's carved into his being.. 'You mess with my family.. you mess with me.'

4) WMD's and BMF's - I DO believe Saddam had some forms of WMD's prior to the war. There is also very credible evidence that he was trying to buy black market nukes. Regardless of all this, Saddam and Sons, Inc. was a nice little collective of Bad Mother Fuckers. They needed to go for no other reason than this actually.


As for the rest of the world.. I'm SO sick of hearing how 'The US is not the world's police force' and yet those same people will shake their fists, raise banners, and protest us NOT going in and policing some other area. You can't have it both ways. Were it me.. I'd tell the rest of the world not aligned with us to go piss up a rope. France wants to thump their chest and play 'concerned neutral power' while they backdoor military supplies to Iraq? Fine.. no problem.. just next time Da Fatherland comes knocking on your door.. learn to speak German, cause I we won't be there to bail you out again.

I would pull US forces out of every foreign nation and basically put the world on notice that if you screw with the USA, we'll turn you into a glass parking lot. Quickly, decisively, and with extreme prejudice.

[waright]

Yes, they have made a lot of their own problems. That doesn't mean we don't have some sort of obligation to help.

So you are saying that we have an obligation to help? To what end? Africa is worse off because of the "help" they get currently and have gotten for the past 30 years.

What EXACTLY can the USA (or Europe) do about Africa that does not hurt them more than help them short of going nation by nation, taking over the governments, re-building the economies, providing security and education then moving to the next after 5 years (maybe 10) and 500billion dollars spent per nation?

Do you actually think making drugs cheaper that prolong ones life if they have HIV is actually going to be positive for Africa? People stay alive longer to give them even more chances to spread AIDS to even more people? Some of the other programs that immunize them and such MAY have positive results but AIDS is totally fucking even that illusion.

Until there is a cure for AIDS AND the population levels in Africa get more in line to what their political/technological/society state are able to sustain, Africa will be the continent that proves that the totality of the human race is not yet to a level that they can totally snub the "only the strong shall survive" rule of nature.

[Vidmer]

This thread is getting more and more ignorant.

Its generally not good form to call those that disagree with you ignorant.

And I see your sensationalist


I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to starvation that would change

and raise you a "I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to a gang raping and murdering secret police that would change"

For Lydia: Good job describing the current state of affairs in Africa, now how can the situation be improved? As for your paragraph on the "right way" I was hoping you would address the question on the operational level and not the theoretical level. For a post that started by criticizing the ignorance of previous posters there sure was a lack of substance in your post. Would you care to address the much trickier question: how?

Eomer:


But there ARE better and worse ways, and pissing off nearly the entire world while in the process of doing it is probably not one of the better ways.

The ROW was pretty much against action under any circumstances and did their best to obstruct. This was either not going to happen or was going to piss off people. Personally I feel most of the opposition was political bluster and these current animosities will be all but forgotten as soon as "not-Bush" becomes president in 2004/8.

As to the prioritizing of help between Iraq/Africa: this is where the meat of debate really is. Africa is just plain really badly off and getting worse. Populations are growing faster then economies; straining what limited institutions they do have. In many parts of Africa the highest level of political allegiance is to one's clan. There is no pre-colonial set of institutions with which they can turn to. In short this situation is so bad that change will take generations. No matter how much we donate today, no matter how much good will we have these are not problems that can be eliminated in any short amount of time. Iraq is an entirely different matter as they do have pre-Saddaam institutions that were succesful and that they have a large educated population that has experience working with the ROW. In the long run Iraq is vastly easier to "fix" then Africa though it may not seem so from watching the news. Plus there were plenty of other benefits for the Iraqi operation.

As for colonialism. I'm going to take the radical position that Africa in general was better off after colonialism then it was before. Pre-colonial Africa was a collection of pre-literate, subsistence farmers/hunter-gatherers that were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes. I have to agree with you on protectionism though. Most every country that has "made it" has done so by protecting their internal market until they can compete internationaly. However at least in agriculture subsidies are here to stay, likely forever. No country wants to risk losing control of its own food supply.

Liberia. The situation in Liberia was quite interesting. US soldiers enforcing a cease-fire would have likely saved the failing regime. I've heard more then one informed source theorize that the US wanted the rebels to win. Take that with a grain of salt however.

[Lydia]

What EXACTLY can the USA (or Europe) do about Africa that does not hurt them more than help them short of going nation by nation, taking over the governments, re-building the economies, providing security and education then moving to the next after 5 years (maybe 10) and 500billion dollars spent per nation?

Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations.

Do you actually think making drugs cheaper that prolong ones life if they have HIV is actually going to be positive for Africa? People stay alive longer to give them even more chances to spread AIDS to even more people?

That comment is sickening. Why not just go there and nuke them all, that would be even faster?
HIV spreads almost exclusively before its known. You own logic applies to the US and europe as well, I am sure you will make friends if you deny US citizens HIV treatment, cause they could infect others.

and raise you a "I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to a gang raping and murdering secret police that would change"

If you compare the numbers of childs killed by some secret police to the number of childs killed by starvation, you likely see the ratio being somewhat in 1000000 to 1.


And "no" I don't know what would have been the best way to remove Saddam, as that depends on how you define "best". If you define "best" by how many people got hurt or killed in the process, that I assume it would have been a good idea to wait until he would have died to old age. Though keeping all the US military around for such a long time would have been stupidly costly.



Short extra note: Something I find pretty amusing.
I am pretty convinced that both the target (Iraq) as well as the timing
of the operation have been decided based on monetary values for a major part. (Interrest in Iraq's oil reserves, cost of having military around etc).
So why is it that the government cannot just say so? Isn't that odd?
Human nature is amazing. :)

[Kattoo Tacit]

And "no" I don't know what would have been the best way to remove Saddam, as that depends on how you define "best". If you define "best" by how many people got hurt or killed in the process, that I assume it would have been a good idea to wait until he would have died to old age. Though keeping all the US military around for such a long time would have been stupidly costly.


Coalition and Iraqi body count maximum figures is estimated at just over 12,000 deaths. Compared to the demonstrated 1.26 million alternative (http://198.30.156.67/000184.php), letting him die of old age does not seem logical.

[waright]

You own logic applies to the US and europe as well, I am sure you will make friends if you deny US citizens HIV treatment, cause they could infect others.

This is the problem. You say deny... where the fuck did you get that. I advocate being careful in what you give... GIVE... GIVE damn it. Subsidising drugs for africa is GIVING acualling giving twice if you are honest about it. First the people who by choice send there dollar to TV adds and 2nd you are forcing the general public to pay for the subsidising of drugs destined for africa.

While I think its unfotunate that a few % of the people in the developed world have access to life prologing drugs wrt HIV I would not advocate deny'ing ANYONE treatment for HIV and my guess is that the vast majority of the people recieving a drug that prolongs life in the developing world are very unlikely to transmit the disease to others due to better education and such. Africa will be worse off with HIV drugs than without. People dying sucks, but not realising that half actions sometimes create more pain and suffering and more long term problems is worse IMO. But by all means, give your dollar to make sure Africa is worse off because half solutions are more cruel than letting that contenent get its act together on its own. If you think giving people money, drugs and food is the answer to ANY problem then we will disagree.

I fully support your right to give whatever you want to help africa, but I refuse to be happy about you trying to force me into giving to cause I dont believe. And I believe a majority of what aid orginazations and governments are doing in africa will cause more pain, suffering and death over the course of the next decaids then if we just left them alone and let good trends from the north and south start creaping into the rest of Africa.


Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations.

Ok, so you are saying that because the US consumer does not buy enough african products africa is having problems. Could you elaborate since I see no way that increasing the US's trade deficate WRT African nations is in any way shape or form a fix. Removing taxes would increase demand yes, so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila? Without you explaining this a bite more I see no way that increased trade is anything but a tiny fraction of any real solution.

Edit: oops, I did the same thing you did, sorry. please let me know if the words I put in your mouth are not acurate IE removing trade taxes is = to Consumers buying more african producs.

[Vidmer]

If you compare the numbers of childs killed by some secret police to the number of childs killed by starvation, you likely see the ratio being somewhat in 1000000 to 1.

Yes more may starve but starvation is a problem that can be solved internally and without any sort of foreign govermental intervation. It may even be best to solve internally as to avoid dependance. Oppression of this magnitude on the other hand is something that can only be "fixed" by powerful entities such as states. You or I alone could prevent the starvation of tens of people alone (IE Singer's notion of giving till it hurts), but there is nothing you nor I can do to remove Saddaam as individuals. This is why a nation should focus on the problems only nations can solve and leave the "easier" solved problem of starvation to inviduals, charities, local agencies, etc.


Short extra note: Something I find pretty amusing...

Oh how true. This is the product of many people in the West living in a fantasy land frankly. We demand clean hands and policies that require dirty hands simultaneously (ie bitching about gas prices). The result being that policy has to be hidden behind doubletalk and a shroud of lies. Our population loves to protest any little thing and if suddenly press conferences read like excerpts from The Prince you would have widescale rioting and that politician wouldn't win against a politician that was a better liar. This slimey nature saves the population from cognitive dissonance and I think many people realize this at least on some level.

[Lydia]

so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila?

Not at all, the us consumer can do all he wants for all I care.
You just asked how the US could help african or even south american countries. If the US is not willing to, it really does not concern me in any way.

[Lydia]

Yes more may starve but starvation is a problem that can be solved internally and without any sort of foreign govermental intervation. It may even be best to solve internally as to avoid dependance.

He we disagree. For the most part, people starving do not do so, because their lands could not produce enough food. they starve, because large portions of those lands are used to produce things that can be used to buy western goods (weapons, luxury etc) for a minority of the population.
Some dictators kill their people with gas, others kill them by letting them starve, in the end the people dying are just as unable to do anything about it.

[waright]

so are you saying that the us consumer has a moral obligation to buy african products over.... lets say austraila?

Not at all, the us consumer can do all he wants for all I care.
You just asked how the US could help african or even south american countries. If the US is not willing to, it really does not concern me in any way.


This still does not answer the question of how it would help. How exactly will increasing trade (what I assume you want to be an effect of removing tarrifs) help africa in a meaningful way?

Edit: I think a good case could be made that increasing trade would hurt since at least some of the economies are controled by the government and it would lead to even worse conditions.

[Lydia]

Ok, so you are saying that because the US consumer does not buy enough african products africa is having problems. I think africa would be much better off, if europe and the us would not trade with africa at all. The trade of african luxury goods against western weapons is what kills most africans.


This still does not anwer the question of how it would help. How exactly will increasing trade (what I assume you want to be an effect of removing tarrifs) help africa in a meaningful way?

Ok - current trade rules are forcing selective production of goods in africa. Trade taxes are in, because those countries could produce those goods at a competive level. Given the fact that the people in charge are interrested in getting western goods, the trade taxes are forcing them to produce other goods (i.e. Coffee). Those other goods are produced in a less effective way (if that would not be true, you would not need the taxes, those lands would produce the more effective goods anyway). So in the end, those countries use up more of their resources to produce luxuries, leaving less of their own production for their own people.

[waright]

If I get you right becuase of trade practices of the rest of the world that particular countries in africa are producing goods that are not in the best interest of said country. IE they should be making food instead of coffee to export.

I really don't know how to argue this. If I agree'd with you my position would be that the best thing we could do is embargo the country in africa in order to force them to use there resourses more wisely. I would not agree that removing tarrifs would help because consumers would still be buying the same things IE coffee weather or not there are tarrifs.

Thank you for explaining yourself but I still don't understand your thinking on this.

[Lydia]

If I get you right becuase of trade practices of the rest of the world that particular countries in africa are producing goods that are not in the best interest of said country. IE they should be making food instead of coffee to export.

I really don't know how to argue this. If I agree'd with you my position would be that the best thing we could do is embargo the country in africa in order to force them to use there resourses more wisely. I would not agree that removing tarrifs would help because consumers would still be buying the same things IE coffee weather or not there are tarrifs.

Thank you for explaining yourself but I still don't understand your thinking on this.

If coffee would be the most cost effective product those countries could make, would you need trade taxes on other goods? I don't see why.
If you would remove all trade tarrifs (that the right word?) people would grow what brings them the most money. Most likely that will be the things that are now selected for trade tarrifs (if not, then I don't see what the tarrifs are for). The result would be a) more wealth in africa, b) higher prices for coffee and c) unemployed workers in the western nations. As we are usually not very interrested in b) and c), a) wont happen.

[waright]

a) more wealth in africa

I disagree with the premise that africa needs more wealth to fix its problems. I think it needs better institutions, education and infrastructure. Wealth alone does not do this, and I will argue that wealth (along with higher populations) without better institutions, education and infrastructure will actually make it harder to get said foundations.


b) higher prices for coffee and c) unemployed workers in the western nations

Dunno, we have suposubly shiped millions upon millions upon millions of jobs oversease and we still have about the same (or less) unemployment rate as 50 years ago. This is an example of how well formed institutions, education and infrastructure can help protect ones own contries from changing world economies.

I still do not understand how " Remove all trade taxes on products coming from those nations." helps an african country build thriving sustainable nations. Thier culture, economies, infrasturcure, governments, educational systems, ect are in my mind the problem. There is no way you can handle a disease like AIDS without ALL of those. The population growth of some of these nations complicates the issue of addressing these problems. Changing trade practices just wont help these underlying problems.

[Lydia]

If you can't see it that way, try it the other way around.

There are three possibilities on how those trade regulation influence the development of africa:

a) it helps them solve their problems
b) it does not change anthing
c) it hinders them solving their problems

I believe c) is true, and I have said why I think so. b) is highly unlikely, as regulations almost always have an effect (why else have them).
So that leaves a). I am pretty interrested how the trade taxes the US and europe have on african goods, could help the african nations. ;)

[Vidmer]

Export based isn't necessarily bad. What is bad when the profit from such business is then invested in Europe/Asia/North America because such investments tend to be safer rather then in the local economy. If you could discourage capital flight then pretty much everyone wins.

[waright]

If you can't see it that way, try it the other way around.

There are three possibilities on how those trade regulation influence the development of africa:

a) it helps them solve their problems
b) it does not change anthing
c) it hinders them solving their problems

I believe c) is true, and I have said why I think so. b) is highly unlikely, as regulations almost always have an effect (why else have them).
So that leaves a). I am pretty interrested how the trade taxes the US and europe have on african goods, could help the african nations. ;)

We will have to disagree on this one. I could see posible arguments for A, B or C but they are all red herrings in my mind for the reasons I have detailed in length above. Besides wholesale takover/rebuilds of nations in africa (which I don't want my tax dollar going to at this time) or time for "darwin", for lack of a better term, to sort things out in africa... Africa is just screwed, trade practices or not, giving money or not, drugs or not. As I said before I think half solutions are worse long term and are more cruel.

[Torrid]

So Lydia thinks trade with the modern nations is killing hundreds of thousands, openly admits he doesn't want it to change for his own benefit, but Vidmer's comment sickens him.

And people can't farm enough to feed themselves because of a greedy/evil minority huh? Gee, wouldn't it be nice to remove evil dictators who fuck their people like that? oh wait a minute...

[Lydia]

We will have to disagree on this one. I could see posible arguments for A, B or C but they are all red herrings in my mind for the reasons I have detailed in length above.

If neither a), b) or c) are true, then there has to be a d) as they are mutually exclusive. I'd be surprised if you could name a d) though.


So Lydia thinks trade with the modern nations is killing hundreds of thousands, openly admits he doesn't want it to change for his own benefit, but Vidmer's comment sickens him.

Waright's comment on the aids isssue was how not treating them is for their own good. My comment was on people starving, for my own prosperity.
The hypocrisy is to say not making aids treatment available to africans is for their own good, when it is in fact just to protect the interrests of the pharma industry.

To say "We can't give them our medicine for free, because then no one would develop new medicine" is something I find rather reasonable, "We can't give them our medicine for free, because if they live longer they will just infest more" is quite different for me.


Gee, wouldn't it be nice to remove evil dictators who fuck their people like that? oh wait a minute...

I am all for removing "evil dictators", there are basically at least 2 major points to decide; who defines what makes someone an "evil dictator" and how many people are you allowed to kill in the process.

[Torrid]

The United States used over 90% precision guided munitions in gulf war 2. You'll excuse me if I roll my eyes at your bad mouthing of my country for "not trying hard enough."

So, what are all the other developed countries doing to stop the evil regimes in the world? France is doing some shit in west Africa, and failing. Thats about all I've heard. Meanwhile the US has stopped several genocides, and got criticised for it.

BTW, Saddam's previous occupation was contract killer. He read off random names of Iraqi leaders to be executed until they started chanting his name in support, then had the survivors pull the trigger the next day on them. He gased thousands of his own people in north Iraq in an attempt to exterminate them. Saddam idolized Joseph Stallin and employed his methods. He had an advanced nuclear program until Israel destroyed the plant. I think he qualifies as "evil enough."

[Lydia]

You'll excuse me if I roll my eyes at your bad mouthing of my country for "not trying hard enough."

Show me one single where I "bad mouth" or even criticize your country.
I am usually very shy to make such statements, knowing almost all the information available to me is not reliable.

[Torrid]

Well, you seem to think we killed too many Iraqis, and for our own benefit. Thats not exactly a nice thing to say about us.

[Lydia]

Well, you seem to think we killed too many Iraqis, and for our own benefit. Thats not exactly a nice thing to say about us.

The question how many Iraqis killed is not "too many" is really no question I know the answer to. Even more as the "acceptable" number of victims is largely dependent on how the Iraq is going to come out of the current situation (I.e will the next government be better than the last in the long run).
And you might even note this as criticizsm - removing a dictator, with seemingly not a slight idea what is going to come after him, is in my imagination not the "best" way to do it.


The second part "for our own benefit" - the war was majorly justified by, "Iraq is a danger, the US has the right to defend itself from that danger". That is as much "for our own benefit" as I can think of and not even metioning interrest in the oil reserves (which are...obvious, or not?).

[waright]

We will have to disagree on this one. I could see posible arguments for A, B or C but they are all red herrings in my mind for the reasons I have detailed in length above.


If neither a), b) or c) are true, then there has to be a d) as they are mutually exclusive. I'd be surprised if you could name a d) though.

You misunderstant me. my point is weather A is true, B is true, or C is true (of course one of the 3 has to be true to one degree or another) the answer is imaterial and the issue of trade is a red herring for reasons I have detailed above.


I am all for removing "evil dictators", there are basically at least 2 major points to decide; who defines what makes someone an "evil dictator" and how many people are you allowed to kill in the process.

The same way these types of things have always been decided since the begining of human time, the people who have power decide.

[Torrid]

Well, the last oil import percentages I saw (which came from CNN, which is notoriously liberal) put Iraq at 4% or some small amount like that.

And yes, we do have a good idea who will replace Saddam. We're determined to make a democratic Iraq. We're not about to lose over 500 of our own just to let some other dickhead ruin it all over again.

[Lydia]

You misunderstant me. my point is weather A is true, B is true, or C is true (of course one of the 3 has to be true to one degree or another) the answer is imaterial and the issue of trade is a red herring for reasons I have detailed above.

Isn't that the same as b)?

I believe removing trade regulations with those states won't be enough to change the situation. But I am convinced of the opposite, if you don't allow them an equal position in international trade, they won't solve thier problems.

Well, the last oil import percentages I saw (which came from CNN, which is notoriously liberal) put Iraq at 4% or some small amount like that.

Big surprise. For a state without any form of government. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world.
But as I said, it is not substantial. The main reason that was advertised for attacking Iraq, was to protect the US from Iraq and their "weapons of massdestruction". If you think oil had no part in the decision to attack Iraq, you are free to have your own oppinion.

And yes, we do have a good idea who will replace Saddam. We're determined to make a democratic Iraq.

How do you "make" a democratic state, does not "democratic" inherently mean, that the Iraqis have to make their own state. If the Iraqis are not interrested in a democracy, there won't be one.

[waright]

How do you "make" a democratic state, does not "democratic" inherently mean, that the Iraqis have to make their own state. If the Iraqis are not interrested in a democracy, there won't be one.

If I am not mistaken we have "made" a "democratic" state in both Germany and Japan. While you are correct that if the iraqis do not want one it will be tough but we have done it, it is posible. How will we know if there can be a democratic state in iraq if we don't try?

[Elidroth]

The US intelligence community has a very good idea of who will come to power in Iraq when all this is done. Don't for one second believe they are as inept as the press would like you to believe.

[Myztlee]

Of course they do. They'll PUT him into power, finance him and supply him with weapons. Just like the last time.

Round and round we go!

[Eomer]

Yeah, that person was supposed to be Ahmed Chalabi, at least that's who the Pentagon wanted. He has no credibility in Iraq, hasn't lived there in like 20-30 years, was even convicted of bank fraud in Jordan at one point, gave the US tons of "intelligence" about how many weapons Saddam had, and has a place on the Governing Council.

[Tarissa]

Yeah, that person was supposed to be Ahmed Chalabi, at least that's who the Pentagon wanted. He has no credibility in Iraq, hasn't lived there in like 20-30 years, was even convicted of bank fraud in Jordan at one point, gave the US tons of "intelligence" about how many weapons Saddam had, and has a place on the Governing Council.

but we did so well in vietnam replacing governments!

france shoulda stuck it out instead :|

[Myztlee]

I meant Saddam.

[Torrid]

We wern't replacing governments in Vietnam. The south wanted us there. In fact they were pissed when we abandoned them to the north.

I won't claim the U.S. will appoint the best person for the job. But its a safe bet they'll be better off when we're done.

[Vidmer]

Of course they do. They'll PUT him into power, finance him and supply him with weapons. Just like the last time.

If this is a reference to Iraq then you couldn't be more wrong. Saddam came to power through the Baathist party without the US's help. The US did not really have much to do with Saddam until the Iraq-Iran war where we did support Saddam to some degree. This was your classic balance of power scenario. As to the weapons, pay attention next time the history channel/CNN show the Iraqi military 1980-present. You will see a lot of destroyed T-72s, MiG 25s and a whole slew of AK-47s and SCUD missles. Most of Iraq's military hardware was Russian designed not American; which is why we suffered so few combat deaths.

[Vinilaa]

That's not true Vid. The US has been playing political ends against each other in Iraq since 1966. You can look it up. This is from the Worldwatch Institute:

For half a century, the United States has made steadily increasing investments in keeping the Gulf region in its geopolitical orbit—and maintaining its claim on a preponderant share of the earth’s resources. The investments have included direct and indirect forms of intervention, massive arms transfers to allies, and the acquisition of military bases. The result has been a series of shifting alliances and repeated large-scale violence. In Washington’s calculus, securing oil supplies has consistently trumped the pursuit of human rights and democracy—a priority unchanged now that the Bush administration prepares for a more openly imperial role in the region.

Saudi Arabia has had a close relationship with the United States since the 1940s, once Washington recognized the country’s strategic importance. But the regime in Riyadh has long been vulnerable to pressures from the far more populous Iraq and Iran. Iran was brought firmly into the Western orbit by a 1953 CIA-engineered coup against the Mossadegh government, which had nationalized Iran’s oil. The coup re-installed the Shah on the Persian throne. Armed with modern weaponry by the United States and its allies, the Shah became the West’s regional policeman once the military forces of Britain—the former colonial power—were withdrawn from the Gulf area in 1971.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pro-Western country until 1958, when its British-installed monarchy was overthrown. Fearing that Iraq might turn communist under the new military regime, the United States dabbled in a temporary alliance of convenience with the Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party in its efforts to grab power. CIA agents provided critical logistical information to the coup plotters and supplied lists with the names of hundreds of suspected Communists to be eliminated.

Even so, in 1972 the Ba’ath regime signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. Baghdad turned to Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals against Iraq for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company, which had been owned by Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, Exxon, Mobil, and the French firm CFP. Iraq was the first Gulf country to successfully nationalize its oil industry during the early 1970s struggle pitting oil exporting countries against the Western multinational corporations that had ruled the industry.

Saddam Hussein, a strongman of the Ba’ath regime who formally took over as President in 1979, was instrumental in orchestrating the pro-Moscow policy. But as it became apparent that the Soviet Union could not deliver the technologies and goods (both civilian and military) needed to modernize Iraq, he gradually shifted to a more pro-Western policy. Western governments and companies were eager to soak up the rising volume of petrodollars, and to lure Iraq out of the Soviet orbit. During the 1980s, this eagerness extended to supplying Baghdad with the ingredients needed to make biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

Washington's Pro-Iraqi Tilt

The year 1979 turned out to be a watershed, as the Shah of Iran was swept aside by an Islamic revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. One of Washington’s main geopolitical pillars had crumbled, and the new regime in Teheran was seen as a mortal threat by the conservative Persian Gulf monarchies. The Carter administration responded by pumping rising quantities of weapons into Saudi Arabia, and began a quest for new military bases in the region (Bahrain eventually became the permanent home base for the U.S. Fifth Fleet). But there was no escaping the fact that neither Saudi Arabia nor any of the smaller Gulf states were strong enough to replace Iran as a proxy.

Instead, Iraq became a surrogate of sorts. Iran and Iraq had long been at loggerheads. Seeing a rival in revolutionary disarray, and sensing an opportunity for an easy victory that would propel him to leadership of the Arab world, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in September 1980. Eager to see Teheran’s revolutionary regime reined in, the United States turned a blind eye to the aggression, opposing U.N. Security Council action on the matter.

But instead of speeding the Iranian regime toward collapse, the attack consolidated Khomeini’s power. And marshalling revolutionary fervor, Iran was soon turning the tide of battle. With the specter of an Iraqi defeat looming, the United States went much farther in its support of Saddam:

* To facilitate closer cooperation, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from a list of nations that it regarded as supporters of terrorism. Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense, met with Saddam in Baghdad in December 1983. His visit paved the way to the restoration of formal diplomatic relations the following year, after a 17-year hiatus.
* The United States made available several billion dollars worth of commodity credits to Iraq to buy U.S. food, alleviating severe financial pressures that had threatened Baghdad with bankruptcy. The food purchases were a critical element in the regime’s attempts to shield the population as much as possible from the war’s repercussions—and hence limiting the likelihood of any challenges to its rule. The U.S. government also provided loan guarantees for an oil export pipeline through Jordan (replacing other export routes that had been blocked because of the war).
* Though not selling weapons directly to Iraq, Reagan administration officials allowed private U.S. arms dealers to sell Soviet-made weapons purchased in Eastern Europe to Iraq. U.S. leaders permitted Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan to transfer U.S.-made weapons to Baghdad. And they abandoned earlier opposition to the delivery of French fighter jets and Exocet missiles (which were subsequently used against tankers transporting Iranian oil).
* From the spring of 1982 on, the Reagan administration secretly transmitted highly classified military intelligence—battlefront satellite images, intercepts of Iranian military communications, information on Iranian troop deployments—to Saddam Hussein’s regime, staving off its defeat.
* As the war went on, the United States took an increasingly active military role. It tilted toward Iraq in the “war on tankers” by protecting oil tankers in the southern Gulf against Iranian attacks, but did not provide security from Iraqi attacks for ships docking at Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal. Later, the United States even launched attacks on Iran’s navy and Iranian offshore oil rigs.

Washington’s immediate objective was to prevent an Iranian victory. In a larger sense, though, U.S. policymakers were intent on keeping both Iraq and Iran bogged down in war, no matter how horrendous the human cost on both sides—hundreds of thousands were killed. (The Reagan administration secretly allowed Israel to ship several billion dollars worth of U.S. arms and spare parts to Iran.) Preoccupied with fighting one another, Baghdad and Teheran would be unable to challenge U.S. domination of the Gulf region. Reflecting administration sentiments, Henry Kissinger said in 1984 that “the ultimate American interest in the war [is] that both should lose.”

Oil and geopolitical interests translated into U.S. support for Saddam Hussein when he was at his most dangerous and murderous—not only committing an act of international aggression by invading Iran, but also by using chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds. U.S. assistance to Baghdad was provided although top officials in Washington knew at the time that Iraq was using poison gas.

Undoubtedly, U.S. support emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990. But he miscalculated badly: the United States would never consent to a single, potentially hostile, power gaining sway over the Gulf region’s massive oil resources. When its regional strongman crossed that line, U.S. policy shifted to direct military intervention.

Pumping Out Oil, Pumping in Arms

In the wake of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil supplies were lost and oil prices spiked. Saudi Arabia calmed world oil markets by stepping up its production by close to 60 percent in 1989-91. Once more, the kingdom’s crucial role as swing producer, and Western dependence on Riyadh, was demonstrated.

Following the Gulf War of 1991, the United States supplied Saudi Arabia and allied Gulf states with massive amounts of highly sophisticated armaments. Washington and other suppliers delivered more than $100 billion worth of arms from 1990 to 2001. In the late 1980s, Saudi Arabia had imported 17 percent, by dollar value, of worldwide weapons sales to developing countries. In the 1990s, the Saudi share rose to 38 percent. The 1990s thus saw a complete reversal of earlier patterns, when first Iran and then Iraq were the prime arms recipients in the Gulf. (See Table 2.)

But rather than becoming independent military powers, Riyadh and the other Gulf states are at best beefed-up staging grounds for the U.S. military: Washington has for many years been “pre-positioning” military equipment and supplies and expanding logistics capabilities to facilitate any future intervention. And although political sensitivities rule out a visible, large-scale U.S. troop presence, more than 5,000 U.S. troops have been continuously deployed in Saudi Arabia, and more than 20,000 in the Gulf region as a whole.

Despite insinuations by the Bush administration, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime is in any way linked to the events of September 11, 2001. However, the terrorist attacks facilitated a far more belligerent, unilateralist mood in Washington and set the stage for the Bush administration doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Installing a U.S. client regime in Baghdad would give American and British companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, and BP) a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time in 30 years—a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars. And if a new regime rolls out the red carpet for the oil multinationals to return, it is possible that a broader wave of de-nationalization could sweep through the world’s oil industry, reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s. (See Table 3 for data on the leading private and state-owned oil companies.)

Rival oil interests were a crucial behind-the-scenes factor as the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council jockeyed over the wording of a new resolution intended to set the parameters for any action against Iraq. The French oil company TotalFinaElf has cultivated a special relationship with Iraq since the early 1970s. And along with Russian and Chinese companies, it has for years positioned itself to develop additional oil fields once U.N. sanctions are lifted.

But there were thinly veiled threats that these firms would be excluded from any future oil concessions unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing support the Bush policy of regime change. Intent on constraining U.S. belligerence, France, Russia, and China nonetheless are eager to keep their options open in the event that a pro-U.S. regime is installed in Baghdad. In early November 2002, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441. It is likely that backroom understandings among the Council’s major powers regarding the future of Iraqi oil were part of the political minuet that finally led to the resolution’s unanimous adoption.

There's more but I really need to get back to my school work. There's a lot more I could say about Iraq, Africa, and Nigerian oil specifically but seriously this thread is getting silly. Can you all just agree to disagree and go outside or read a book or something? :p

[Myztlee]

What's a book? You mean like a manual for a game?

[Vidmer]

Vini was that the article you meant to post? It supported my assertion rather then opposing it as your opening statement would seem to imply it should.

My main assertion was that Saddam was well entrenched in power before the US provided him any aid, which your article supports. The Ba'athists came to power in 1968 and was definitely not a US friend as your articles states
Even so, in 1972 the Ba’ath regime signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. Baghdad turned to Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals against Iraq for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company.. which is hardly the actions of "friendly" nations. Every "Western friendly" action listed in that article takes place AFTER Saddam had been a senior Ba'thist for nearly 24 (dating from the coup attempt in 56) years and already the absolute leader of Iraq.

My second asssertion was that eventual US assistance was the result of conflict with Iran as part of a balance of power strategy and your article once again supports this assertion.
Washington’s immediate objective was to prevent an Iranian victory. In a larger sense, though, U.S. policymakers were intent on keeping both Iraq and Iran bogged down in war, no matter how horrendous the human cost on both sides—hundreds of thousands were killed.

Mind you I never asserted that the US had no involvement in Iraq prior to the 1980s, I merely said we did not aid Saddams personal rise to power as MH had previously asserted. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter rather then reading a cut-paste and run.

[Tarissa]

osnap

[Vinilaa]

Sorry Vid if I am too busy to capitulate to your conversational whim at this moment. I'm completely bogged down in other things. We can talk about this issue at some point in the future if you'd like. :p Right now I'm in the middle of translating Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, studying for a test in Classical Mythology (Hesiod and Aeschylus can be tedious to read even in the best translation), reading a ton for my linguistics class and getting ready for a study abroad this summer in Durban S. Africa.

You are not completely wrong on the US involvement with Saddam pre-1980s but there were attempts to sway him to our way of thinking in the 1970s. ;) There are some political theorists who assert that the CIA had direct involvement in putting Saddam into power in the Ba'ath party but I haven't seen much evidence for that assertion.

I guess I should have been more specific about what I was disagreeing with in your post, I meant to point out that the US has been giving Iraq weapons/technology for much longer than the 1980s in efforts to maintain control of our interests in the region. Sorry about that...

Now can you all get off this crazy topic and go do something more productive? :p

[Vidmer]

Yes, we supported the pre-Ba'athist monarchy. However I am not finding much information at all about the US supporting Iraq prior to the Iranian conflict. We didn't even have formal diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1967 to 1984. I just don't see how we could have officially supported the Ba'athists during that time period. Every source I investigate makes it absolutely clear that the normal situation between Ba'athis Iraq and the United States was a situation of distrust. This interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aziz.html) shows that the Iraqi government themselves felt that the United States was hostile to them and was actively working to undermine their regime before and after the Iranian conflict.


You are not completely wrong on the US involvement with Saddam pre-1980s but there were attempts to sway him to our way of thinking in the 1970s. What this is supposed to mean I have no idea. Are you implying we bribed him with money/arms(a bad thing)? Are you saying we had a dialogue with him(a good thing)? In my limited searching I found no evidance for either.


Now can you all get off this crazy topic and go do something more productive? Actaully I find such discussions productive. This is an election year where foreign policy will be a main concern after all. Though I guess it would be more productive for us to play more video games and watch more tv with our time instead.

[Myztlee]

Though I guess it would be more productive for us to play more video games and watch more tv with our time instead.

Or reading one of those crazy book-things, whatever they are, that Vini was talking about earlier.

[Vinilaa]

We didn't even have formal diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1967 to 1984. I just don't see how we could have officially supported the Ba'athists during that time period.

I never said this support was formal or official. From the site you posted:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/critchfield.html

How did you become involved in the Middle East?

"A few days before Christmas, in 1959, Allen Dulles invited me to his office. He was the director of central intelligence. After I spent ten years in Europe being involved in American intelligence, I had returned to Washington, and had joined the Central Intelligence Agency. Allen told me his conclusion that the Soviet Union, after 1955, had redirected its principal strategic interests away from the Stalin effort to take western Europe, and toward the Third World, particularly towards the Middle East. He said that he expected a full effort by the Soviet Union to establish itself physically in the Middle East. He said that the CIA had done a very effective analysis of the vulnerability left in that area by World War II. He proposed that I leave Europe, and go to the Middle East and south Asia. to be responsible for our operations there.

I had a comparable experience in Europe in the ten years after the war, so I found this an exciting assignment. Europe had become extremely stable after the Warsaw Pact. I very enthusiastically went to the Middle East. For ten full years, I was the head of the Middle East operations, starting in 1959. Allen's analysis, detailed to me before Christmas, 1959, turned out to be the reality. The Soviets did pull out all the stops in their effort to take over the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Suez Cannel, and the Arabian peninsula. But in the end, they totally failed to achieve their objective.

By 1959, Iraq was becoming important, because they had gone through one or two revolutions. The conservative monarchy established there by the British had fallen in a coup. Gamal Nassar was extremely active in the Ba'ath politics. We recognized in the Ba'ath. They were probably opposed to Egyptian nationalism, but we thought they were equally opposed to Soviet communism. Aside from that, we had no clear U.S. policy in which Iraq was either central or even very important. The Soviet effort in the Middle East tried to penetrate the Fertile Crescent from Damascus, to Baghdad, toward the Gulf, and through Egypt and the Suez Cannel to the Red Sea. So it was equally important for them to get control in Baghdad. I think the U.S. policy was essentially containment of Soviet efforts there--Baghdad was merely a piece on the board.

In 1961 and 1962, we increased our interest in the Ba'ath--not to actively support it--but politically and intellectually, we found the Ba'ath interesting. We found it particularly active in Iraq. Our analysis of the Ba'ath was that it was comparatively moderate at that time, and that the United States could easily adjust to and support its policies. So we watched the Ba'ath's long, slow preparation to take control. They planned to do it several times, and postponed it.

We were better informed on the 1963 coup in Baghdad than on any other major event or change of government that took place in the whole region in those years. But we did not identify a radical movement within the Ba'ath that would, six months later, stage a kind of counter-coup, and replace the moderate elements in the Ba'ath. That was our mistake--that surprised us."
--James Chritchfield is former CIA Near East Division Chief and was the leading behind-the-scenes architect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East during the Cold War. (The cold war was from 1948-1991).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/chalabi.html

Let's go over some of the history, starting with the Ba'ath Party's coup in 1963.

"The United States got scared that the communists were going to take over in Iraq. And they were scared that the Kassem regime was going to permit the communists to have strong influence in the country, and eventually Iraq would be a communist country. So they found a group of officers and civilians in the Ba'ath Party, who fit the United States recipe on how to deal with communism in the Arab world and in the Third World, which is to encourage so-called indigenous, well-organized nationalist forces to oppose Marxism. These people were ideal military officers, organized conspirators, so they worked with them.

They helped them in every way. They sent messages, and passed messages to them, and they permitted them to operate from areas where the U.S. had influence, in Lebanon, in Egypt. They funded them, and provided them with communications facilities. They also provided them with a list of maybe 1,600 names, broadcast over some radio stations, of communists who should be "eliminated." That's what happened. One of the people who had a minor role to play in this was Saddam himself, who was in Cairo at the time.

. . . [So] definitely the U.S. helped them. [And] there's a clear place where the U.S. helped them diplomatically. In 1963, in the spring, there was the most vicious and determined campaign to eliminate the Kurdish rebellion in the north. For the first and only time since the monarchy, Turkey, Iran and Syria worked together to eliminate the Kurdish rebellion. I believe this was coordinated by some United States agencies. The Syrians were even permitted to send a brigade to participate in the massacre of the Kurds.

Because it was a difficult time for the Kurds in spring, 1963, it became very strange that Iraq and Turkey would cooperate with the Ba'ath Party and nationalists against Kurds. And the Shah, was, in fact, helping the Kurds just a few months earlier.

Let's talk about 1968. Was the involvement of the U.S. in that coup as detailed and as significant as with the coup in 1963?

The U.S. role in the coup of 1968 was not as detailed and as determined as its role in the coup of 1963. I think the Anderson episode was overblown. There's a great deal of fantasy and conspiratory theory involved in this, and I don't think Anderson, who was a Republican, had much clout with the Johnson administration. But the United States knew of that one, because the Ba'ath Party spared no effort to try to secure the acquiescence of the United States in their effort. They spared no efforts to try to persuade the Israelis not to block their path. One of the coup leaders, who is now deceased, came to London in February, 1968, six months before the coup. He apparently met with some Israeli military representative here in London, and said to him, if you will not stand in our way in making this coup, we will pull the Iraqi army back from Jordan once we are successful, and they did. . . .

There was some effort by officers through contacts in Beirut to keep the U.S. abreast of this. The deputy director of military intelligence also played some role with some intermediaries with the United States. He was not a sophisticated man. He was a person who had a flair, in Iraqi terms, for appearing secretive and conciliatory, and he was easily manipulated.

So, there were these links. But you see it was not all an even thing, because, by 1968, the massive Arab nationalism was essentially a spent force. Nasser was defeated by the Israelis, and the Arabs were in disarray. Iraq was also in disarray, a weak country--the oil prices were not that high, and there are always the Kurds who could be stirred up. The Shah was much more powerful than Iraq; Iraq was not considered to be a strategic threat.

We've heard from some American diplomats who were active in the 1970s that there was a gradual improvement of relations, from the mid-1970s, and, roughly, onwards--beginning with business contacts, then diplomatic contacts at higher levels. What do you think was motivating that on the American side?

Saddam persuaded the Ba'ath to nationalize the oil companies in 1972. He made a treaty with the Russians, a friendship and cooperation treaty for 15 years. I know there was a western effort to try to make a coup in Baghdad. Some Americans and British people were involved. They asked King Hussein to lead this effort, and, in 1972, did make an attempt. The U.S. also made an attempt with the Kurds, in beginning of 1972. Henry Kissinger met with Barzani in 1972 and promised them help.

King Hussein met with Barzani--unfortunately most of the actors in this drama are deceased, but they did meet--and there was a flurry of activity. Then King Hussein was told by the western powers to desist by the autumn of 1972. This effort was abandoned, because the focus shifted to using the Kurds to put pressure on Saddam--the strategy that was advocated by the Shah. So the focus shifted to Idris Al Barzani. General Barzani gave a very important interview to the Washington Post. He was interviewed in northern Iraq, in Kurdistan, around August of 1973.

General Barzani, at the time, was very forward in seeking U.S. support, and even seeking Israeli support in the effort against the Ba'ath Party. This developed into full-scale open warfare in Iraqi Kurdistan. All kinds of games were played on the Kurds, and their expectations rose, contrary to the wishes of General Barzani. His rebellion was transformed into an exodus of people. He told me that he was weakened by the fact that there were over half a million people who have migrated from their homes in the cities of Iraq.
--Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is part of a three-man leadership council for the Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress.

Now leave me alone, I really don't have time for this. ;)

[Vidmer]

I should have specified I was refering to the post internal coup Ba'ath party of 1963. The Ba'ath party prior to that coup was as your article states was moderate and useful in opposing the Soviets. The Ba'ath party post 1963 is the Ba'ath party we know today. It is akin to refering to the republican party of 1863 as the "same" political party here in 2004. Your Chalabi article shows US support for the Ba'athist party up until 1963. At which point mention of support is missing. This continues until 1968 when they nationalise the oil.

So while we may have provided aid to a party that shares the same name as the Ba'athist party of today, they were fundamentaly different groups.

[Llain]

vanilla is a super ninja when it comes to posting... don't mess with her.

[Vinilaa]

vanilla is a super ninja when it comes to posting... don't mess with her.

hehe Llain spell MY name right!!!!!!!!!! :p :D

[Llain]

hehe Llain spell MY name right!!!!!!!!!! :p :D
see what i mean? i got owned...