State of Iraq

[nicky g]

The most dangerous place in the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4457705.stm)
Insurance major Aon ranks Iraq as the most dangerous place in the world to do business, and notes that the fallout of the war has seen the threat increase in Western countries tied to it.

Iraq blighted by poor services (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4414291.stm)
More than two years after the war, the much vaunted reconstruction has done little for the average Iraqi.

"There are continuing power cuts in much of the country and hospitals struggle to provide adequate treatment.

Sewage often pours untreated into rivers which many Iraqis have to drink from.

Look around the Iraqi capital, and the most obvious change over the past two years has been the mushrooming of concrete anti-blast barriers.

In most areas there is little visible sign of reconstruction and residents across the city have power for half the day at most."

New police, old methods (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050418_5596.htm)

"the training of the 142,000-member police force -- about half the total security forces supposedly needed -- is moving more slowly and fraught with bigger problems than reports by U.S. officials might suggest... Most disturbing, in the last half of 2004 Iraqi police have killed political opponents, falsely arrested people to extort money, and systematically raped and tortured female prisoners, according to a February, 2005, State Dept. report on Iraq's human rights record. In one of the worst examples, police in Basra reported last December that officers in the Internal Affairs Unit were involved in the slaughter of 10 Baath Party members. "

Not to mention recent reports of massive increases in infant mortality, a violent death rate more than twice that before the war, and so on. Thanks again boys.

[Cyrus]

As long as justice rules supreme in the United States, there is hope for the Middle East, for Iraqis either living or gratefully dead, for Iraq, for democracy, for freedom, for private property, for the price of oil - for everyone.


Los Angeles : Man gets 8 years for vandalizing SUVs (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut/index.html)

<font color="white"> . </font>

[MMMMMM]

You guys will be shown to be on the wrong side of history (as the Left nearly always is).

The insurgency in Iraq is diminishing due to less support and more aggressive action by the Iraqis themselves against it.

Diverse political groups are coming together to work together.

Iraqi infrastructure is being built and rebuilt.

A despotic regime which murdered over 300000 of its own contrymen has been removed.

The "Thanks again boys" is particularly misguided and odious.

I am totally amazed at the number of people who don't recoil at the idea of the maintenance of the former totalitarian tyranny. Don't you guys realize that there is always a price to be paid for overthrowing tyranny? Freedom isn't free. Iraq is in one of its toughest periods now but even so it is better than 6 months ago and will get slowly better. THAT'S certainly better than another 30 years of tyranny. Sheesh.

[ACPlayer]

... painting the opponents of the war as "Left". Just becuase you dont agree with it does not make it so. Ask the many conservative (who are willing to think independently of the Republican party line) who opposed the war.

The rest of the post is the line you are fed from dubious soruces like WorldNet, Debka and Fox and gobble up like a good soldier.

[jokerswild]

I tried thinking of you as an intelligent follower of Neocon fascism. It doesn't work. Any man that believes that the Speaker of the House is a Senator certainly understands history. LOL!

If you had lived in Germany in the 30's, you'd have supported the Reich with enthusiasm. The Nazis, and fascists in general, are right wingers. I know that comes as a surprise to your feeble mind.

Thinking of you as a stupid, greedy, jackboot licker gets the money.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
...painting the opponents of the war as "Left". Just becuase you dont agree with it does not make it so. Ask the many conservative (who are willing to think independently of the Republican party line) who opposed the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was referring to Nicky and Cyrus as "Left", since they were only ones in the thread at that point;-) Sorry for not making that clear;-)

However it is true that the Left typically did/does oppose the war more so than did the Center or the Right. I also do think that the Left has been amazingly often on the wrong side of history.

[MMMMMM]

You are really losing it, jokerswild.

I've put in a reservation for you at the Four Paws Resort so you can recuperate.

Poor PsYcHo-ScHnAuZeR. You're a good dog, really. Everything is going to be OK. Don't let that mean man bite you.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...painting the opponents of the war as "Left". Just becuase you dont agree with it does not make it so. Ask the many conservative (who are willing to think independently of the Republican party line) who opposed the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was referring to Nicky and Cyrus as "Left", since they were only ones in the thread at that point;-) Sorry for not making that clear;-)

However it is true that the Left typically did/does oppose the war more so than did the Center or the Right. I also do think that the Left has been amazingly often on the wrong side of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?

Vast generalizations earn you nothing but chuckles from me. It's the only reason I read this forum anymore.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?

Vast generalizations earn you nothing but chuckles from me. It's the only reason I read this forum anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't like the Center or Right was wrong on all those things, was it? And the Democrats were more opposed to black civil rights than were the Republicans at the time.

Anyway here's an article you might will find interesting:

" Michael Costello: Left on the wrong side of history

April 15, 2005

HOW has it happened that the Left of politics across the world has ended up opposing a foreign policy philosophy of spreading democracy in favour of supporting the traditional conservative agenda of stability, sovereignty and the status quo? Because that is what the Left is doing in its hostile reaction to George W. Bush's second inaugural address.

It is entirely understandable that the Left is viscerally anti-Bush. His political strategy is not based on the democratic approach of seeking the middle ground, but on sharpening differences and divisions, of defaming and intimidating those who do not support him as appeasers, immoral and weak. His and his cabinet officers' contemptuous treatment of allies and the international institutional framework could not be better demonstrated than by his nomination of John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. I have had direct experience of how Bolton works. He believes that when the US says "jump", others should ask "how high?" He tolerates nothing else.

But there's something much deeper at work here than the Left's dislike of Bush. It is something that has bedevilled the Left since the 1960s.

Bush said in his second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

This is resonant of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961, when he said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Kennedy's words inspired the world. It particularly inspired those of us on the progressive side of politics. But those words turned sour because they presaged the US drive deeper into Vietnam. And for most members of

the Left, Vietnam is the seminal personal and political rite of passage. Vietnam destroyed a Democrat president. It brought down a Republican president. It discredited the moral and political leadership of the US. Now when the trumpet sounds, the Left's instinctive reaction is to cry "No, not another Vietnam".

And so it has been over Iraq. The Left sees it as a Vietnam-style quagmire, a parcel of lies, leading once again to defeat. But the military, geostrategic and political terms of engagement in Iraq are different to those of Vietnam. The most profound difference rests on the issue of democracy. For 15 years the Americans ran the South Vietnamese political system; the elections held were dubious and led to regimes without legitimacy.

In sharp contrast, Iraq's elections were for real. They are considered legitimate by the world because they are legitimate to Iraqis themselves, who voted in droves. A two-month delay in putting together a new government, far from being a negative, is a positive because those months were devoted to what democracy does best -- political accommodation, power sharing, consensus building.

Now the Iraqis have a Kurd as President, a Sunni and a Shia as vice-presidents, a Sunni as Speaker and a Shia as Prime Minister. Negotiations for the final constitution will also require accommodation, compromise and broad support. Nothing remotely like this ever happened in Vietnam.

This has dramatically affected the insurgency. The Association of Muslim Scholars, the leading group of Sunni religious leaders, has told Sunnis they should joint the government forces. This is a reversal of the association's previous position. It signals the likely end, albeit over considerable time, of the local insurgency. Al-Qa'ida fighters led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will continue but, despite their high profile, they are a third-order problem compared with the Sunni insurgency.

Some say, as did Kim Beazley, that the elections in Iraq have not had any influence on promoting democracy elsewhere in the region -- for example, in Lebanon. This is incorrect. The Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said recently of developments in Lebanon that "this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

True, Bush and others are over-claiming progress and underestimating the dangers that lie ahead. We accept democracy as normal; it is not. Democracy is the most radical and revolutionary political idea in the world. Having an election does not, on its own, lead to good government (think of Russia), and democracy can completely fail (as in Zimbabwe). But it can also over time succeed spectacularly (for example, in eastern Europe and East Asia). Democracy is full of risk, but nothing is more full of hope -- ask the voters of Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Afghanistan and elsewhere, who so treasure their right to vote that they risk their lives for it.

A foreign policy without principle will fail because it is fundamentally sterile. That is why unadorned so-called "realism" in foreign policy, with its emphasis on stability and the status quo, can sound clever and sophisticated but in the end implodes under its own emptiness. But principle must be pursued with pragmatism and with patience if it is not to end in recklessness and aggression.

The key thing for those on the Left to understand is that intense dislike of Bush and echoes of Vietnam do not make a foreign policy. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Bolton - they too will pass. What will go on is the great human desire to be free, which should be at the core of our foreign policy. The great danger for the Left is that its Vietnam and Bush obsessions may mean that it will end up on the wrong side of history. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12856956%5E7583,00.html

[nicky g]

"I am totally amazed at the number of people who don't recoil at the idea of the maintenance of the former totalitarian tyranny. Don't you guys realize that there is always a price to be paid for overthrowing tyranny? Freedom isn't free. Iraq is in one of its toughest periods now but even so it is better than 6 months ago and will get slowly better. THAT'S certainly better than another 30 years of tyranny. Sheesh. "

According to the Aon report, it's more dangerous than it was a year ago.

The question is at what point the price no longer becomes worth it. IMO given that Saddam was contained and weak prior to the war, and the war has seen indicators such as death rates, unemployment and malnutirition spiral upwards in its aftermanth, not even counting its direct consequences in terms of death and destruction, of the war and the fallout for other nations, that point was passed quite some time ago. Tere's also the question of the quality of the freedom that has been paid for, one so far marred by curfews, the large-scale displacement of civilians, the police state-style behaviour mentioned above, disappearances and torture and so on. I suspect however that there is no point at which the war becomes not worth it for many of its supporters. It reminds me of an argument we had here about Russia, when someone said that Russia was better off economically than prior to the collapse of Communism. I pointed out that, more than a decade later, it actually wasn't better off on any economic indicator, which earned me a barrage of accusations of short-sightendness, simply because I pointed out an indisputable fact, because one day we're told it will be better off. Perhaps. The fact is that Iraq is still in a mess caused directly by the architects of the war and the people they charged with the running of the country in its aftermath, at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been used to save many lives elsewhere. One can only hope that the new government will do a better job if it ever gets off the ground properly and can act without US interference.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky I agree that costs must play a part in the consideration. However these costs seem like relatively small costs when weighed against the costs incurred elsewhere in struggles for freedom. Be on your guard against being too short-sighted. Costs appear immediately but whether a country has decades--or even centuries--ahead of it in freedom or in tyranny is a BIG, BIG thing.

Freedom is worth more than pure material things, too. I'd rather be a bit poorer and free than a bit richer and danger of my own government or without rights to free speech, etc. Hopefully you agree and can see the merits of this, not just at present, but for the ever-extending future.

[nicky g]

I don't think there's much merit to talking in centuries as noone can know how long the situation in Iraq would have continued without a war, or how long the current "freedom" will last.

"I'd rather be a bit poorer and free than a bit richer and danger of my own government or without rights to free speech, etc."

Sure. But I'm not sure I'd trade living under a tinpot dictatorship for open sewers in the streets, no electricty in one of the hottest places in the world 50% or more of the time, a massively increased chance of a violent death and not being able to work or feed my family properly in return for the chance to live in a free chaotic and corrupt semi-police state. A decrease in material wealth is one thing, large increases in sickness and mortality rates is another.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was referring to Nicky and Cyrus as "Left".

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm not of the Left, but let's not quibble. I understand what you're trying to say. (And it's more fun this way.)


[ QUOTE ]
I also think that the Left has been amazingly often on the wrong side of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Well, well, well. Care to elaborate?

This has all the makings of turning into a laugh-in. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. But I'm not sure I'd trade living under a tinpot dictatorship for open sewers in the streets, no electricty in one of the hottest places in the world 50% or more of the time, a massively increased chance of a violent death and not being able to work or feed my family properly in return for the chance to live in a free chaotic and corrupt semi-police state. A decrease in material wealth is one thing, large increases in sickness and mortality rates is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but wouldn't you trade it if you only had to endure a relatively short time of stuff like that? Plus the conditions you mention are not affecting all Iraqis.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as justice rules supreme in the United States, there is hope for the Middle East, for Iraqis either living or gratefully dead, for Iraq, for democracy, for freedom, for private property, for the price of oil - for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 years for vandalising cars lol, if thats justice [censored] it, he would probably get a caution over here, now his life is basically [censored], all because the US legal and political system hates environmentalists? Where is the hope, where is the justice, seems draconian in the extreme.

Mack

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't like the Center or Right was wrong on all those things, was it? And the Democrats were more opposed to black civil rights than were the Republicans at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, talking about the 'Center' as if it's an ideology gives rise to the false notion that the center is an ideology; the center is hardly ever right or wrong. They're typically never proposing anything other than compromise between opposing factions. Saying 'The Center and the right' were joined together in unity for/against women's rights/segregation/labor is just an attempt to make the right seem more moderate and the left appear more outside the mainstream; which may all be true, but I'd be willing to bet that you would be hard-pressed to prove that the center is always aligned with the right. I wish you luck if you'd like to try though. I can even give you some aid if you'd like. First, define the center, who it consists of (both contemporarily and historically), and what the center believes (again, both now and historically), then diagram how these beliefs align with the right on segregation/women's rights/worker's rights.

Then, when that fails, stop claiming the center is unified with anyone or anything.

Also, claiming 'Democrats' were more opposed to civil rights than Republicans isn't necessarily true (see below); the prescence of conservative Southern Democrats created opposition to Civil Rights within the Democratic party. But it has little power to implicate the left. MMMMMM did not claim DEMOCRATS were on the wrong side of history; he claimed the left was on the wrong side of history, and certainly the left has not always been synonymous with the Democratic Party - particularly in regards to Southern Democrats during the Civil Rights Era. So attempting to claim the left was on the wrong side of civil rights because some Democrats were opposed civil rights fails upon even the softest of scruitny.

Either way, if the voting record from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is any indication, then support/opposition to Civil Rights didn't break on party lines, but geographical ones:

Vote totals, Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?



[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what "workers rights" exactly means, but if you mean the modern labor movement in the U.S. it has basically decimated the working middle class in the U.S.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but wouldn't you trade it if you only had to endure a relatively short time of stuff like that? Plus the conditions you mention are not affecting all Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you mean by relatively short. It looks to many of us that Iraq will end up a democracy in name where parties get and hold onto power through intimidation violence and curruption, making it only marginally better than the previous administration. Also it should be noted that many believe that Saddam's power structure was weakening to the point where his reign wouldn't have lasted much longer, that though he had murdered hundreds of thousnads in the past- he was no longer capable of doing so, and that large sections of Iraq were out of his power, and living a reletively free existance (those living under the no fly zone).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks again boys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I sense your outrage at the insurgents and I share that outrage towards the insurgency with you. Glad to see that at least you understand and grasp the criminal and evil nature of the Iraqi insurgency, the insurgency that targets innocent civilians; the insurgency that rejects the right of the Iraqi people to choose their government; the insurgency opposed to democracy; a mindless insurgency with no political purspose other than to oppress free people and destroy their institutions. Congrats nicky didn't know you had it in you.

[ACPlayer]

You should learn to be more precise in your writing so that people can be precise in their reading.

Regarding the Left being right more or the right being left (behind) more those are subjective opinions. You offer them often, usually without definitions. Amazing!

[nicky g]

Mmmm. By the way while you are misunderstanding me on purpose, I note that M was outraged at that phrase, presumably taking it as directed at US soldiers. It wasn't; although I don't think they should be there there's little use in directing anger at the average grunt doing what they're ordered to, even if following orders is not a viable defence, and it was aimed at Bush, Rumsfeld and Co.

On the subject of the insurgency, I have nothing but contempt for the likes of the ones that have been blowing up crowds of civilians etc. I have more sympathy for those that have been fighting a guerrilla war against occupying troops, which I believe area probably much larger group; while I think they are misguided and should lay down their weapons for at least long enough to see how the new Iraq pans out, essentially give peace a chance, I can't be overly judgemental of people who decide to fight a foreign invading army that has been heavy handed and careless and has engaged in things like the flattening of Falluja (whose population is still largely living in tent cities by the way, not that you'd know it from the coverage of the "liberal" media which has forgotten the entire thing) and other provocations.

Furthermore blaming the insurgency for all of Iraq's current problems, even ignoring that the rise of the insurgency is a large part the fault of the war and the handling of its aftermath , is ridiculous. They are hampering reconstruction efforts but the effects of the war and the chaos that followed it, especially the terrible handling of reconstruction, have had a far greater effect.

[BCPVP]

Man, you guys want Rome built and you want it built yesterday!
As far as the rebuilding stuff goes:

Check here (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/apr05/iraq_fs24_041405.pdf) for last week's updates on ongoing projects.
Here (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/index.html) for past updates.

Having done some research on this subject for a paper I'm writing, I don't think the BBC is portraying the situation very accurately. For example:
[ QUOTE ]
After the U.S. military and its allies invaded Iraq in March 2003, the coalition forces discovered an infrastructure decimated by decades of neglect.

Sewage treatment systems were not working, instead dumping untreated waste into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers — the same rivers from which the population draws their drinking water, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which helps oversee Iraq's reconstruction.

Meanwhile, water treatment systems, which serve only a small percentage of the country's residents, were not adequately treating drinking water. Many people directly haul water out of rivers for drinking, bathing and cooking without any treatment. Since the early 1990s, Iraqi children have died in high numbers largely because of the deliberate neglect of the country's wastewater facilities. The deaths number in the hundreds of thousands, according to the U.S. government.

"There was serious need to clean up the waste being released into the Tigris," said Harry Edwards, a spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International Development, also known as USAID. "It had not been done for many years and was quite possibly instrumental in childhood illnesses in some of the Shiite populations."

A USAID report states that the death rate has been so high — hundreds of thousands over the past 12 years — that in parts of southern Iraq, "it may be tantamount to infanticide."

The United States is spending more than $217 million repairing existing water and wastewater systems throughout the country, directly benefiting 14.5 million people, according to USAID. More money would be needed to expand the systems and construct facilities in other areas.

[/ QUOTE ]
source (http://web29.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&amp;_ug=sid+01A8AB91%2D6270%2D4B17%2 DA88B%2D3E9E48FC938F%40sessionmgr6+dbs+afh%2Cf5h+c p+1+3A27&amp;_us=frn+1+hd+True+hs+False+or+Date+ss+SO+ sm+KS+sl+%2D1+dstb+KS+mh+1+ri+KAAACBZC00126507+D4A 1&amp;_uso=hd+False+tg%5B0+%2D+st%5B0+%2DIraq++Reconst ruction+db%5B1+%2Df5h+db%5B0+%2Dafh+op%5B0+%2D+mdb %5B0+%2Dimh+3F4A&amp;cf=1&amp;fn=1&amp;rn=27)

[andyfox]

"You guys will be shown to be on the wrong side of history (as the Left nearly always is)."

Depends what you mean by "the Left." Communism was/is clearly on the wrong side of history. But if you mean the Democratic Party, i.e., the left side of America's mainstream political specturm, it has clearly been on the correct side of history in our country. It fought the Cold War (dragging the conversative, isolationist Right Republicans along kicking and screaming) and the Civil Rights Movement and oversaw the making of America into the mightiest political and economic power the world has ever seen.

I think it's far too early to tell whether the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be successful or not. The original post is useful as an antidote to the rose-colored optimism of others who claim things are going swimmingly. Since our government is on the "swimmingly" side, a view of the other side of the argument is important. Far too early to tell which side is closer to the truth. One suspects that, as usual, it lies somewhere in the middle.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's far too early to tell whether the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be successful or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of the insurgency, I have nothing but contempt for the likes of the ones that have been blowing up crowds of civilians etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great.

[ QUOTE ]
I have more sympathy for those that have been fighting a guerrilla war against occupying troops, which I believe area probably much larger group; while I think they are misguided and should lay down their weapons for at least long enough to see how the new Iraq pans out, essentially give peace a chance, I can't be overly judgemental of people who decide to fight a foreign invading army that has been heavy handed and careless and has engaged in things like the flattening of Falluja (whose population is still largely living in tent cities by the way, not that you'd know it from the coverage of the "liberal" media which has forgotten the entire thing) and other provocations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah they are freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis. That's absolutely hilarious. There are so many things wrong with what you write here I can't even begin to waste my time answering this.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore blaming the insurgency for all of Iraq's current problems, even ignoring that the rise of the insurgency is a large part the fault of the war and the handling of its aftermath , is ridiculous. They are hampering reconstruction efforts but the effects of the war and the chaos that followed it, especially the terrible handling of reconstruction, have had a far greater effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's ridiculous is your implication that the insurgency is led by those fighting for a free and democratic Iraq. When people decide to kill innocent civilians the responsibility lies with those commiting the murder. When people fight to maintain a regime that oppresses 80% of it's population by blowing up whatever the responsibility lies with those seeking to oppress and committing the mayhem.

[nicky g]

Sorry, but I am not going to take a US government source trying to excuse its own failings that talks about the "deliberate neglect" of infrastructure without any mention of the effects of the sanctions (any clue why the infrastructure started to deteriorate in the 1990s?) and the subsequent devestation of the Iraqi economy seriously.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]

Ah they are freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis. That's absolutely hilarious. There are so many things wrong with what you write here I can't even begin to waste my time answering this.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore blaming the insurgency for all of Iraq's current problems, even ignoring that the rise of the insurgency is a large part the fault of the war and the handling of its aftermath , is ridiculous. They are hampering reconstruction efforts but the effects of the war and the chaos that followed it, especially the terrible handling of reconstruction, have had a far greater effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's ridiculous is your implication that the insurgency is led by those fighting for a free and democratic Iraq. When people decide to kill innocent civilians the responsibility lies with those commiting the murder. When people fight to maintain a regime that oppresses 80% of it's population by blowing up whatever the responsibility lies with those seeking to oppress and committing the mayhem.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is little point in wasting my own time responding to these as you completely mischaracterise what I said. To put it simply for you:

I did not say the insurgents were fighting for freedom and democracy. I said that I am not willing to condemn out of hand people who take up arms against a foreign invading army participating in what I regard as an illegetimate war, although I am willing to condemn those that target civilians, and I think all insurgents should lay down their arms (especially at the moment when they are being offered an amnesty), as the Muslim Council of Scholars has been recommending. if that is too nuanced a point for you, maybe you should read something else. My other points were the upheaval of the war and the handling of its aftermath bear at a lot of responsibility for the rise of the insurgency and most of the responsibility for the poor state of Iraq today, which in turn sustains the insurgency to a degree.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I am not going to take a US government source trying to excuse its own failings

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind explaining how USAID is responsible for the deterioration of Iraq's wastewater treatment facilities?

[ QUOTE ]
any clue why the infrastructure started to deteriorate in the 1990s?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't suppose swindling Billions from OIF and playing three-card monty with the Inspectors had anything to do with it(not to mention other abuses w/ money)...

[ QUOTE ]
and the subsequent devestation of the Iraqi economy seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. But I'd love to hear where you're going to find a better source on how the details of Iraq's reconstruction are proceeding than the actual gov't agency responsible for that reconstruction...

[nicky g]

"Mind explaining how USAID is responsible for the deterioration of Iraq's wastewater treatment facilities?"

It and the occupation forces in general, and the effects of the war they undertook, have been responsible for damaging Iraqi infrstructure and doing a rotten job of repairing it.

" don't suppose swindling Billions from OFF and playing three-card monty with the Inspectors had anything to do with it(not to mention other abuses w/ money)..."

We've had this discussion before on the board - the fraudlent OIF revenues paled int insignificance in comparison to the economic damage done by the sanctions, and were largely additional to the legitimate revenues rather than diversions of legimitate revenues.

"Fine. But I'd love to hear where you're going to find a better source on how the details of Iraq's reconstruction are proceeding than the actual gov't agency responsible for that reconstruction... "

You have a point. But it is still clearly massively biased and I prefer to take my cue from respectable journalistic sources.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It and the occupation forces in general, and the effects of the war they undertook, have been responsible for damaging Iraqi infrstructure and doing a rotten job of repairing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) USAID did not damage the wastewater facilities in Southern Iraq.
2) The wastewater facilities have been neglected over the years by Saddam
3) On what do you base your claim that they're doing a rotten job repairing it (considering what they have to work with and terrorist attacks)

[ QUOTE ]
We've had this discussion before on the board - the fraudlent OIF revenues paled int insignificance in comparison to the economic damage done by the sanctions, and were largely additional to the legitimate revenues rather than diversions of legimitate revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right...so the fact that Saddam chose to spend money bribing the UN and on arms from those countries has absolutely nothing to do with their neglect of their own infrastructure...

[ QUOTE ]
But it is still clearly massively biased and I prefer to take my cue from respectable journalistic sources.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it may be biased, but there just isn't a lot of journalistic interest in the progress on specific projects within Iraq. Who really wants to know how many mW an electricity plant in Baghdad is producing? "If it bleeds, it leads..."

[nicky g]

"1) USAID did not damage the wastewater facilities in Southern Iraq."

Of course not. It is however part of the US government that pushed sanctions and undertook a war that did. It also has a vested interest in making the facilities look as bad as possible before it intervened so that its work looks as good as possible.

"The wastewater facilities have been neglected over the years by Saddam"

The entire Iraqi national infrasturcture crumbled during the sanctions. Prior to those Iraq had probably the best infrastructure in the Arab world.

"On what do you base your claim that they're doing a rotten job repairing it (considering what they have to work with and terrorist attacks)"

Two years later and the country is full of open sewers, has little electricity capacity etc. They've handed out massive contracts to foreign companies instead of local engineers that repaired most of the damage following the first Gulf war much more cheaply and quicckly, and there have been recent reports on the work that's been done already faling apart. Much of the money allocated hasn't even been spent, while billions of dollars from teh early days of the post-war period is simply unaccounted for. The place is a shambles.

"Right...so the fact that Saddam chose to spend money bribing the UN and on arms from those countries has absolutely nothing to do with their neglect of their own infrastructure..."

There's no point going round in circles. ANy misspent money certainly would have helped but as I said it paled into insignificance in relation to the economic damage, and largely did not consist of funds being diverted (but rather of A. smuggled oil that generated additional funds, and B; giving contracts allegedly in return for influence - but those contracts would have been given anyway). THe amounts of money intended for humanitarian relief misspent through OFF corruption are a tiny fraction of the amount of revenue Iraq lost through the sanctions.

"Yes, it may be biased, but there just isn't a lot of journalistic interest in the progress on specific projects within Iraq. Who really wants to know how many mW an electricity plant in Baghdad is producing? "If it bleeds, it leads..." "

You can find a lot of stuff if you look for it. Part of the problem is that the authhorities didn;t bother to put out any serious statistics in thr two years after the war making any serious analysis difficult, preferring PR puff pieces about GIs building schools.

I'm off.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not. It is however part of the US government that pushed sanctions and undertook a war that did. It also has a vested interest in making the facilities look as bad as possible before it intervened so that its work looks as good as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that every other government agency is equally (if at all) culpable for everything the Executive/Legislative branch does. Is the Dept. of the Interior guilty as well? And if USAID is fudging the numbers on how bad Iraq's infrastructure was, why were so many dying in southern Iraq pre-war?

[ QUOTE ]
The entire Iraqi national infrasturcture crumbled during the sanctions. Prior to those Iraq had probably the best infrastructure in the Arab world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now the infrastructure had crumbled. Which is it? It very well might have, but weren't the sanctions put in place to keep Saddam from rebuilding his wmd's? If so, then why didn't Saddam spend the money he would have been spending on wmds on the crumbled infrastructure? Is it conceivable that Saddam did not take very good care of his country?

[ QUOTE ]
Two years later and the country is full of open sewers, has little electricity capacity etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming that you're getting this from the article you posted. While Iraq still has a long way to go, it is not as bad as the article claims and you would know that if you perused the weekly updates at USAID.gov.

[ QUOTE ]
They've handed out massive contracts to foreign companies instead of local engineers that repaired most of the damage following the first Gulf war much more cheaply and quicckly, and there have been recent reports on the work that's been done already faling apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're really confusing me. Why was Iraq's infrastructure decimated if they had such skilled local engineers?

[ QUOTE ]
Much of the money allocated hasn't even been spent...

[/ QUOTE ]
which is understandable considering how much money has been allocated.

[ QUOTE ]
here's no point going round in circles. ANy misspent money certainly would have helped but as I said it paled into insignificance in relation to the economic damage...

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. I'd love to hear your alternative that would keep Saddam from building more wmds that doesn't hurt the Iraqi economy. But I wasn't referring to the Iraqi economy. I'm talking specifically about the wastewater treatment facilities that were ignored during the 90's. I can't imagine that it would have taken billions and billions to keep those running.

[ QUOTE ]
You can find a lot of stuff if you look for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might be able to find stuff mentioning reconstruction, but a newspiece doesn't really help when you're trying to analyze something like that. They're just not in-depth enough. You almost need a source that's fairly(if not entirely) dedicated to the topic of reconstruction.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky you may be underestimating the actual size of the oil-for-food scam. It was unquestionably the LARGEST scam in history, a sam besides which the Enron debacle pales in comparison as to sheer size.

Also, if it weren't for the EVIL INSURGENTS, the country might have been rebuilt by now. But those ASSHOLES would rather keep blowing things up, and keep murdering Iraqis and Americans, and keep Americans busy fighting, than help with the rebuilding themselves.

I think you really ought to shift a significant portion of your blame allocation away from the U.S. and towards the U.N. and the insurgents.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Nicky you may be underestimating the actual size of the oil-for-food scam. It was unquestionably the LARGEST scam in history, a sam besides which the Enron debacle pales in comparison as to sheer size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true? Please, somebody elaborate, I want to know how the Oil for food progam affected the life and pockets of thousands of Americans.

[MMMMMM]

Well Sirio I don't have all the answers but this may help:

" The Journal Editorial Report

LEAD STORY

LEAD STORY

PAUL GIGOT: Welcome to THE JOURNAL EDITORIAL REPORT. According to a report by Senate investigators this week, it turns out that Saddam Hussein stole more than 21 billion dollars from the Oil for Food program and from oil smuggling -- more than twice as much as previously thought. And it becomes more and more clear that Saddam had a lot of help from the United Nations and from some of our supposed allies.

We depart from our usual format this week to call on the expertise of two journalists who reported and wrote extensively about this scandal, when hardly anyone else was. They are Claudia Rosett, a columnist for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE and for OpinionJournal.com, and Rob Pollock, a senior editorial page writer for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Claudia, the Oil for Food program was designed in the middle 1990s to be able to provide food and medicine for Iraqis who, we thought, were suffering under sanctions. Now we know that didn't happen. Tell us how Saddam Hussein was able to fleece this program.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: He used scams so simple a 10-year-old familiar with markets could have spotted them. There were three basic ways. He undercharged for the oil he sold, which meant that the person buying the oil got a very fat profit, which he then kept part of and kicked back part to Saddam. Saddam over-paid for relief goods, say, baby food, which meant that the person selling him the baby food got a fat profit, kept some, kicked back part to Saddam, bank deposits into secret accounts where Saddam is getting it and the Iraqi people aren't. And he smuggled out billions worth of oil, which was all produced under what was supposed to be the supervision of this program.

PAUL GIGOT: That sounds like an old fashioned skimming operation.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Oh, it was classic text book stuff. In fact, it's the kind of thing any remotely responsible manager setting up a program would look for ways to guard against.

PAUL GIGOT: And not only were the people of Iraq not getting the food and medicine in the quantities that they were supposed to, but they were getting rotten food in many cases, because they were shipping poor quality goods but charging as if they were high quality goods.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Precisely. And substandard medicine. And in fact, given that the inspections company that Kofi Annan, the secretary, had hired -- the one that employed his son for awhile -- not only inspected, by general accounting office estimates, seven to 10 percent of the goods, we don't even know that the erstwhile shipments, that all of the erstwhile shipments, contained goods at all.

PAUL GIGOT: Wow. Rob, 21 billion dollars. Maybe there'll be more later, we don't know. The toll keeps rising. What did Saddam do with that money?

ROB POLLOCK: Well you know, a lot of people talk about this scandal, first of all, as if the size of the scandal is somehow equal to the size of the unmonitored revenues, whether that be the new estimate of 21 billion or the previous estimate of 10 billion. But the fact of the matter is, that Saddam was able to exploit every legitimate dollar within this program to reward his friends and allies. So we're talking about 97 billion dollars.

PAUL GIGOT: And he could do that how? By assigning -- by allocating contracts for oil and for food, is that it?

ROB POLLOCK: That's right. He gave those contracts to people he wanted to influence in one way or another.

PAUL GIGOT: Okay. But the net take of his was still 21 billion. And I grant you that the 97 billion was used to buy influence, and I want to talk about that. But the 21 billion went for something. What did it go for?

CLAUDIA ROSETT: It went for -- and by the way, that number may still be small. I think the estimates make it larger. It went for a number of outrageous things. It went to buy influence, including, we have from Charles Duelfer on the Iraq Survey Group, to bribe crucial members of the Security Council -- China, Russia, and France, among many others. It went to buy weapons, which Saddam was doing. Conventional weapons, but those are killing people right now in Iraq very likely. It went to fund terrorists. We now know for sure the Palestinian suicide bombers, but there are many other troubling terror links in this U.N. program. And it also went to buy things like palaces and Mercedes for Saddam's regime.

PAUL GIGOT: All in all, it went to sustain Saddam's rule for a decade after the Gulf War, when we had wanted to depose him. Right, Rob? Isn't that kind of the big picture here, that that's what this allowed him to accomplish?

ROB POLLOCK: That's right. He was buying influence abroad. He did about 23 billion dollars worth of business with the Russians. He did about seven billion dollars worth of business with the French. Now it's possible, we can imagine that maybe the French and the Russians aren't too worried about losing that business. But if nothing else, they certainly don't want that web of corruption exposed.

PAUL GIGOT: Who were some of the individuals involved here? We know Charles Pasqua, the former French Interior Minister, for example. Weren't there also people who were close to President Putin in Russia?

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Yes, one of his right-hand men. Well, people named in the list alleged to have --

PAUL GIGOT: This was on the list.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Yeah, these are allegations, but interesting ones. Aleksander Voloshin, His right-hand man, a lively player in Russian politics for some time. Vladimir Jirinovski, who appears to have funneled money, according to the allegations. The President of Indonesia is on the list, but mostly going back to France, Charles Duelfer mentions aides to President Jacques Chirac, the former French ambassador to the United Nations. It's really an interesting roster. And then of course, the jewel in the crown, the alleged head -- the head of, he's not alleged -- alleged to received oil bribes from Saddam, the former head of the Oil for Food program, Benon Sevan.

PAUL GIGOT: All right. Let's talk about Kofi Annan's role in here, because you brought that up. He was not around as Secretary General when the program was created, but he came shortly thereafter. And he did have a big role, wide latitude, in creating -- or in developing the program. What is his role here, Rob?

ROB POLLOCK: Well, as you noted, the resolution creating the Oil for Food program gave the Secretary General a lot of discretion to design a program to insure what it called the "equitable distribution of foodstuffs and other goods" to the Iraqi people. It also gave the Secretary General the authority and responsibility to sign off on each six-month phase of the program and report back to the United Nations on how well it was working. It clearly doesn't seem that Kofi took his oversight role very seriously.

PAUL GIGOT: Willful ignorance here?

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Oh, signing off on things like the sports stadium for Saddam's son Uday toward the end of the program, broadcasting equipment from France and Russia.

PAUL GIGOT: Wait a minute. The U.N. actually knew that the money was going to build that kind of a stadium?

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Kofi Annan's personal signature is on the plan approving that. I cannot see any way you can think -- that anyone can think -- it was willful ignorance. There are only two possibilities. Either there was such astounding incompetence that Kofi Annan should never be let near running anything, let along the United Nations, or he knew what was going on, and what we are now dealing with is this amazing stonewall where he will not release records that would tell us more.

PAUL GIGOT: Wasn't there supposed to be some supervision here by the Security Council powers, the French, the Russians, and the United States? Weren't we supposed to be paying attention here?

ROB POLLOCK: We were, we were, and we tried a bit -- I believe it was 1999 was the first time that the U.S. and Britain held up some obviously corrupt contracts under Oil for Food. And that happened again a few times. And then, in 2000, when Saddam added the oil surcharge, the United States and Britain tried, and eventually succeeded, despite a lot of kicking and screaming from the French and Russians, to introduce a scheme called "retroactive pricing" so Saddam couldn't -- didn't know what he could charge for a barrel of oil, and build in the room for the kick-back.

PAUL GIGOT: Okay.

ROB POLLOCK: So ...

PAUL GIGOT: So they made some progress. But basically it went on right until Saddam was deposed.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: With the enthusiastic urging of Kofi Annan that it be expanded, that the range of its allowed so-called humanitarian imports grow. And he himself took over direct supervision from mid-2002 until the program ended because Saddam fell, for all the food, medicine, all the so-called sort of direct humanitarian supplies, which were the ones where the most was scammed out of the contract.

PAUL GIGOT: What does this tell us about, more broadly here, the future of the United Nations as a body, an institution? As a force for collective security in the world, and our ability to trust it as a partner?

ROB POLLOCK: How can you set up as the ostensible arbiter of the legitimate use of international force, an organization that is so obviously vulnerable to corruption and to blackmail?

PAUL GIGOT: How about you, Claudia?

CLAUDIA ROSETT: It tells us you should not trust the United Nations with anything involving serious responsibility. If you want to lock them all in a room and let them be a debating society, that's a great idea. But no budget, no power to -- nothing where we are depending on them to enforce things on which our lives depend.

PAUL GIGOT: All right. Short answers here from each of you. Knowing what we know now about how Oil for Food operated, do either of you think there was any chance that the U.N. Security Council was going to vote to topple Saddam Hussein?

ROB POLLOCK: Zero chance.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Never.

ROB POLLOCK: Even if they weren't worried about losing the business, they didn't want it exposed. Zero chance.

CLAUDIA ROSETT: Sure, they were open to blackmail, even if they weren't in good faith enough to say "bought." It was never going to happen.

PAUL GIGOT: All right. Thank you very much. Next subject."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/111904/p_transcript_leadstory.html

[sirio11]

Well, even if this is true, I'm yet to see how this scam affected the American people, at least in the same size as the Enron scandal affected them. You may be right that from a global perspective it was bigger than Enron, but wasn't from an American perspective, and that's all that counts right? Specially for you pro-war, your motto is f the world, America is all that matters. And most Americans and almost all conservatives could care less from this scam and how the Iraqis were affected, unless of course it serves the purpose to bash the UN, France and Russia.
Still I accept that the people responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi children, should be prosecuted and pay for it. All of them

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
And most Americans and almost all conservatives could care less from this scam and how the Iraqis were affected, unless of course it serves the purpose to bash the UN, France and Russia.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is actually pretty true.

Sounds about right. Im a conservative, and it pretty much sums up how I feel. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Have a nice day.

[ACPlayer]

I remember seeing signs that it was Bush and America that are evil.

Of course EVIL is relative to the perspective of the person offering the opinion - a truism you find hard to accept as you only recognize your perspective and the underlying assumptions as correct.

The reasons for the insurgency are understandable. The tactics are abhorrent but not surprising and entirely predictable. In fact on this forum it was pointed out a couple of years ago that Iraq was not ready for Democracy to be imposed from outside and that there would be infighting between the ethnic groups.

Iraq to survive needs to be run by an iron fisted dictator and it will be, whether that dictator is Saddam or a Theocratic govt or an occupying force. The dictatorship is liable to have all the attendant problems (like prisoner abuse, devastation of towns and cities in search of criminals, the suppression of human rights -- it has been happening in the last two years of "freedom" as well). When the Iraqi is ready for democracy, then they will start down the route of Iran and slowly but surely move towards a lasting democracy.

The entire experiment is an exercise in futility until it is lead from within.

[nicky g]

"I don't agree that every other government agency is equally (if at all) culpable for everything the Executive/Legislative branch does. Is the Dept. of the Interior guilty as well?"

It's not a question of culpability, it's a question of bias. As a government agency USAID is unlikely to give out information that puts itself or the US government as a whole in an unfavourable light, such as information that points to the sanctions, the war and incompetent reconstruction efforts as some of the main casues of the poor state of Iraq.

"And if USAID is fudging the numbers on how bad Iraq's infrastructure was, why were so many dying in southern Iraq pre-war?"

Many did indeed die; the point is that the article you posetd completely ignores that the sanctions were the main driver of the crumbling infrastructure.

"Now the infrastructure had crumbled. Which is it?"

The infrastructure did indeed crumble. The point is that the statement completely ignores the effect of the sanctions on this, and it's in their interest to exaggerate the difficulty of repairing it. They crumbled because of a lack of money; now that money is allegedly there, yet everything is still a mess.

"I'm assuming that you're getting this from the article you posted. While Iraq still has a long way to go, it is not as bad as the article claims and you would know that if you perused the weekly updates at USAID.gov."

More circles. The USAID statement you posted shows clear bias in their reporting and they clearly have a vested interest in talking up the work they do. They are not a remotely impartial source and the piece you posted is basically out and out propaganda.

"Now you're really confusing me. Why was Iraq's infrastructure decimated if they had such skilled local engineers?"

Because of a lack of money. You're confusing two different things; the long term effects of the sanctions and the immediate effects of the war. In the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, Iraqi engineers did a very good job of getting power back very quickly. They did a pretty good job of maintaining it in the face of the effects of the sanctions, although it clearly deteriorated. The second war damaged it further and now, despite the end of the sanctions and loads of money being thown at US corporations to rebuild it, the power is still not back on properly or even back at pre-war levels in many places.

"It very well might have, but weren't the sanctions put in place to keep Saddam from rebuilding his wmd's? If so, then why didn't Saddam spend the money he would have been spending on wmds on the crumbled infrastructure? Is it conceivable that Saddam did not take very good care of his country?"

This is a completely ridiculous point in an otherwise well argued post. The sanctions weren't simply designed to deduct from Saddam of the money he wanted to spend on WMDs. They were designed as a punishment to utterly cripple the Iraqi economy; the amount of economic damage done dwarfed the costs of the abandonned WMD programmes.

"Perhaps. I'd love to hear your alternative that would keep Saddam from building more wmds that doesn't hurt the Iraqi economy. But I wasn't referring to the Iraqi economy. "

Targetted diplomatic and military sanctions, and some economic ones targetted at teh regime's elite, not ones that impoverished the entire country. By the end of the sanctions period they had become much better targetted in fact, although there was still some way to go; in the first half or so they utterly devestated the country.

"But I wasn't referring to the Iraqi economy. I'm talking specifically about the wastewater treatment facilities that were ignored during the 90's. I can't imagine that it would have taken billions and billions to keep those running."

Well that's your issue as I'm talking about the country as a whole, and I have no specific knowledge of the history of these plants or if what USAID claims is true. But it doesn't need to take billions and billions if the country is short of money for everything; if something only costs one dollar to fix but you there are a thousand other things that also need fixing and you only have 100 dollars, it's probably not going to get properly fixed.

[nicky g]

Biggest scam or not, the simple fact remains that the amounts involved in the OFF scandal did not come close to the amout of damage done by the sanctions. Was the abuse of the programme wrong? Of course? Would the people of Iraq have been fine and dandy if only there had been so OFF fraud? Not even close.

The point also remains that by far the biggest element of the scandal was the oil smuggling, which brought additional revenues in, rather than diverting OFF revenues; the bulk of the figures quoted did not deprive the Iraqis of anything.

[MMMMMM]

Sirio,

My point wasthat that oil-for-food scam was much bigger than Enron. How much or how it may have affected the American people is another issue, and I know evel less about that aspect of it.

Investigations are still under way regarding the oil-for-food scam. More information will come to light.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Biggest scam or not,

[/ QUOTE ]

It was bigger than the Enron and Worldcom scams put together.



[/ QUOTE ] the simple fact remains that the amounts involved in the OFF scandal did not come close to the amout of damage done by the sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that might be, but just how do you know that?

[ QUOTE ]
Was the abuse of the programme wrong? Of course? Would the people of Iraq have been fine and dandy if only there had been so OFF fraud? Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Saddam had spent the $21 BILLION he stole from the oil-for-food program, on infrastructure and other things to help his own people, instead of on palaces, luxuries and his military, don't you think that $21 BILLION would have made a HUGE difference?

[ QUOTE ]
The point also remains that by far the biggest element of the scandal was the oil smuggling, which brought additional revenues in, rather than diverting OFF revenues; the bulk of the figures quoted did not deprive the Iraqis of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you may be right on that; I don't know enough to argue this point, so let's see what more comes out as the investigation progressses.

[ACPlayer]

The noise from the moronic right wing about the oil for food program is to detract from serious consideration of the real problems with Iraq, the abjectly poor decision to go in to Iraq, the incompetent handling of Iraq once it was occupied and the ongoing ethnic tensions in Iraq. Anytime the discussion of Iraq comes up the blame is point to the UN and Saddam or the Democrats or the Europeans or the Arab culture or the sex habits of butterflys rather than accept responsibility for the mess.

[MMMMMM]

Well, ACPlayer, Iraq is starting to be led from within, and in a democratic manner too. If this Iraq thing works and Iraq fairly soon becomes a democratic country, so much for your entire theory.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, in a few years you will likely look back on this and see how wrong you were. It will be fun to see the look on your face then.

[ACPlayer]

Shame on you. I thought you were a poker player.

Even if it "works" does not mean that one should not analyze the decisions that lead up to the events and the handling of the events.

Just because you raise under the gun with K9 off and win a multiway pot does not mean that you should have played the hand, regardless of the excuses you can find along the way.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it "works" does not mean that one should not analyze the decisions that lead up to the events and the handling of the events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course--but if Bush's overthrowing of Saddam's regime and replacing it with a democratic structure "works", then that will certainly refute your view that the entire process needs to be initiated internally by Iraqis in order for it to succeed.

[ACPlayer]

Wrong again.

The best way for freedom to be attained is for it to be earned. This is the mantra that should be remembered when making decisions to impose freedom (what an oxymoron) from outside.

Even if a play works out and you win the pot, you may still have lost money in the long run if you played it like the fish -- I see it every day in the Poker Room. Going around imposing freedom is a good way of going broke.

Of course when Bush and Company went into Iraq it was not to impose freedom on the stupid Iraqi, was it?

[nicky g]

"It was bigger than the Enron and Worldcom scams put together."

It makes no sense to compare them; they were entirely different kinds of scams, and the overall figures bandided about for OFF are largely nonsensical in terms of figuring out how much extra money could have gone to help Iraqis, adding money diverted from the OFF programme and extra money earned outside the programme by the Iraqi government together, when it would make more sense to subtract one from the other.

"Well that might be, but just how do you know that?"

Iraqi oil production fell from 3.5mn/b/d prior to the first Gulf War to about 500,000b/d afterwards until 1996 when the OFF was introduced; thereafter it averaged around 2mn b/d. Say oil averaged at about US$10 a barrel in the same money that the OFF scandal is being counted in (in fact it would be way more assuming the OFF figures are using current or recent values) across the period; that's close to US$100bn (other estimates I've seen range from about this up to US$150bn) in lost oil revenues during the sanctions period, assuming oil production would have stayed at pre-war levels (in fact it probably would have risen significantly) . Some of that would have been lost anyway due to the disruption following the war, but without sanctions the infrastructure could have been repaired within a couple of years. That's vastly more than any estimate of the diverted OFF revenues. Now add in the economic damage caused by the fact that it only received about 2/3 of the goods it ordered under the OFF programme, plus the facts that it was blocked from importing all sorts of basic things including lots of stuff necessary for repairing infrastructure, from producing all sorts of basic things (it was banned for instance from producing paper), and that things it did receive were often held up for years, and the massive waste involving channeling all of a country's imports and exports through a single external agency, and you have economic damage vastly higher than the OFF scandal figures. And more than half of the OFF figures regularly quoted are irrelevant as they amounted to additional revenue the Iraqi government illicitly earned outside of the programme, much of which was spent legitimately by the government, rather than the diversion of OFF humanitarian funds . I'm also not at all convinced that all the money counted in the other figures really represented diverted money; some of it seems to include money that someone external would have legitimately got anyway as a commission, but under the scam went to people specifically to buy influence.

"If Saddam had spent the $21 BILLION he stole from the oil-for-food program, on infrastructure and other things to help his own people, instead of on palaces, luxuries and his military, don't you think that $21 BILLION would have made a HUGE difference?"

A difference, not enough to alleviate the effects of the sanctions. Furthermore as I've explained before, more than half the quoted figures, which I'm not at all sure are accurate, refers to money that Iraq wasn't entitled to under the sanctions, much of which was spent legitimately. In other words some of the fraud earned extra money for Iraqis, rather than taking money away from them. The figure showing how much OFF money that should have gone to humanitarian relief but was illegally diverted into the pockets of businessmen or Saddam cronies is nothing like US$20bn.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not arguing as to "the best way".

You have claimed that imposing democracy cannot work. All I'm saying is that if it does work in Iraq, that will refute your view.

[ACPlayer]

If it does work I will be one happy dude.

My views are always flexible and ready for revision.

[MMMMMM]

Good to hear; I always knew there was hope for you;-)

[nicky g]

On the subject of the water treatment facilities, these guys (http://www.iraqwaterproject.org/whatisIWP.htm) put the blame very specifically on the first Gulf War (during which civilian infrastructure was targetted) and the sanctions, quoting from a Food and Agriculture Organisation report that says [ QUOTE ]
"The water and sanitation system remain critical throughout the country with the Basrah area (pop. 1 million), being the most serious. The basic reason throughout the system is the lack of spare parts for a variety of equipment. These parts cannot be purchased without foreign exchange and UN sanctions committee approval may also be required for most of the items."


[/ QUOTE ]


This report (http://www.change-links.org/Iraq.htm) from 2000 also points out that much of the equipment needed to repair water treatment facilities was banned or withheld under the sanctions:
[ QUOTE ]
"We visited a water treatment plant serving 2 million Baghdad residents, and we saw the cracks remaining from bomb damage in the cement filtration pools, rendering the purification process incomplete. The plant administrator told us that the cracks could be repaired with a 2-day epoxy cement job, but the UN Sanctions Review Committee will not approve the special cement for import. In fact, they have approved only 9% of Iraq's contracts for water treatment supplies and sewer pipes.
In the countryside, it is worse; access to potable water is only 33% of 1990 levels. Thousands of children die every month because of contaminated water... The sanctions prohibit Iraq from importing chlorinators for water treatment, sewer pipes, computers, garbage trucks, ambulances, radiology equipment, and even pencils (containing graphite), anything that may have a "dual use", that is a civilian or military purpose."


[/ QUOTE ]
Now these are cearly politicised sources, but if the US-pushed sanctions were indeed preventing the plants from being repaired, who were the real perpetrators of the "infanticide" the USAID report brings up?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime the discussion of Iraq comes up the blame is point to the UN and Saddam or the Democrats or the Europeans or the Arab culture or the sex habits of butterflys rather than accept responsibility for the mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you accept full responsibility when its clear that for years, the agenda that you have been pushing, one backed by international "agreement", was being usurped?

[ACPlayer]

,

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Shame on you. I thought you were a poker player.

Even if it "works" does not mean that one should not analyze the decisions that lead up to the events and the handling of the events.

Just because you raise under the gun with K9 off and win a multiway pot does not mean that you should have played the hand, regardless of the excuses you can find along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison that you make is nonsense. There is no way that you can equate the two. You cannot tell me that before the war, or even now, that you know the EV of going to war with Iraq. You do with K9o UTG.

[jaxmike]

Are you too ignorant to understand?

Just so you could understand I went back and quoted exactly what I was responding too....... I hope you are now capable of grasping what I wrote.

[ACPlayer]

Yes, I can and I did and I will.

The EV of going to war was negaitve before the war, during the war and after. We have received no where near the benefit that was described to us before the war or any ancillary secondary benefit as a result of the war.

Even dogma prone thickheads now can only talk about the freedom to the Iraqi as the benefit that has accrued as a result.

The argument is essnetially over except for those who are unable to admit that their thinking was wrong and that is YOU.

[ACPlayer]

What aganda have I been pushing? As the least dogmatic most openminded poster on this forum, I can hardly be accused of pushing a dogma. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

You cannot rightly make that claim, ACPlayer, because the long-term benefits of the Iraq War are as yet unknown.

Simply put, if this turns out to be a successful stepping stone for the spread of democracy in the Middle East, the future benefits to us will be so large as to be incalculable.

Neither you, nor I, know at this time what will happen in the future as a result of the Iraq War. Therefore we cannot know the EV as of yet.

We both hold largely opposite opinions on the eventual outcome of the Iraq war, and obviously only a wait-and-see approach will give us a clearer picture.

[ACPlayer]

How often can you be wrong in a day.

EV is expected value not actual outcome.

We dont hold opposite hopes on the OUTCOME of the war, we (perhaps) hold opposite views on the justification, the thinking and the reasoning of going to war in the first place.

Where we are at right now, we have invested and invested (will be investing more) and have seen no benefit to date and no benefit CLEARLY insight. We have hope -- how ofter do you make a play based on hope? how ofter do you call based on hope? how many people go broke chasing hope?

[BCPVP]

Nickyq, I'm not arguing that the sanctions didn't hurt Iraq's infrastructure. They cleary did. My argument is that Saddam did nothing after the first Gulf War to maintain wastewater treatment facilities.

I'd also point out that you aren't going to find an impartial source that has as much info and data about the nuts and bolts of the reconstruction.

[jaxmike]

I did not accuse you of doing any such thing. I am going to repost what I wrote here...

You wrote...
[ QUOTE ]
Anytime the discussion of Iraq comes up the blame is point to the UN and Saddam or the Democrats or the Europeans or the Arab culture or the sex habits of butterflys rather than accept responsibility for the mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of what you wrote here was that the current administration is trying to blame others for, what you call, the "mess" in Iraq. My response follows...

[ QUOTE ]
How can you accept full responsibility when its clear that for years, the agenda that you have been pushing, one backed by international "agreement", was being usurped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that the "you" that I am talking about here is the current administration, not you personally.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I can and I did and I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't because there is no way to accurately measure the EV.

[ QUOTE ]
The EV of going to war was negaitve before the war, during the war and after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide your statistical proof. You have none, and cannot create any.

[ QUOTE ]
We have received no where near the benefit that was described to us before the war or any ancillary secondary benefit as a result of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing to your argument. You claimed that going to war was a negative EV move (in a nutshell). You cannot make this claim, because you have no basis to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Even dogma prone thickheads now can only talk about the freedom to the Iraqi as the benefit that has accrued as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you put a value on that?

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is essnetially over except for those who are unable to admit that their thinking was wrong and that is YOU.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is you that is being closed minded. You do not understand the scope of what has happened or what will happen. I am not saying that I can either, but I can assure you that you do not understand all the implications of what has transpired. You are mired in a defeatest and negative ideology at least in regards to this issue. The argument is over for you because you believe you are right, despite a total and utter lack of evidence to prove your point. Only time will tell the true value of the war (or lack thereof). For someone who preached (I believe in this thread) that he was the most open minded poster on this forum, I find this an incredible hypocracy.

[MMMMMM]

The scenario is far too complex to be able to calculate EV with any degree of even rough accuracy. Hence a wait-and-see approach is necessary.

There are encouraging signs from Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and yes, even Iraq, that the winds of change that are blowing may be more than mere temporary breezes.

You are all too quick to throw in the towel, I think. Poker is not the only game that is counted in the long run.

[ACPlayer]

Prior to any investment there should be a clear case presented on the expected return on that investment. If the USA makes this investment there must be a return to the USA. A clear case was presented on the expected return. That particular case has been discredited and now we have been presented with a new case to wit the "spread of democracy".

Now, instead of realizing that the initiam investment was a poor one -- becuase that would admit a mistake was made which is political suicide -- and putting in place a plan to cut the losses anbd/or pass the losses on to other countries via the UN, this administration callously continues to risk our boys and girls in Iraq and expending dollars that could be used to make America more secure -- see for example the funding request for better screening equipment at the airports that the govt is trying to pass to the airports/airlines.

Poker and decisions of war are analogous in that tough decisions are made with incopmplete information and in each case we get a chance to conitinually evaluate whether we should continue with the investment or move on. Just as in Poker we should be prepared to look back to the quality of the initial decisions and evaluate that rather than continue to live on Hope -- that is the tactic of the FISH.

We should have moved on, we did not -- we should now plan to move on and leave Iraq to evolve as it does under international auspices.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I disagree with your assessment of Iraq, and with your assessment of the merits or wisdom of the initial plan.

Time will tell who is right.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course EVIL is relative to the perspective of the person offering the opinion - a truism you find hard to accept as you only recognize your perspective and the underlying assumptions as correct.

The reasons for the insurgency are understandable. The tactics are abhorrent but not surprising and entirely predictable. In fact on this forum it was pointed out a couple of years ago that Iraq was not ready for Democracy to be imposed from outside and that there would be infighting between the ethnic groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be misunderstanding why I call the insurgents evil.

It is not because I view their side as "wrong" (although I do). It is rather because they are targeting and killing ANYONE they can, basically. They are killing their own countrymen, not just American soldiers; not even just government/security Iraqis, either: they are deliberately killing innocent civilian Iraqis as well. In short, they are no better than terrorists.

Below is what I wrote; you can see that this fits with the above:

M: "Also, if it weren't for the EVIL INSURGENTS, the country might have been rebuilt by now. But those ASSHOLES would rather keep blowing things up, and keep murdering Iraqis and Americans, and keep Americans busy fighting, than help with the rebuilding themselves."

It is primarily their tactics to which I am objecting. The fact that they have adopted terrorist/nihilistic tactics is what makes them evil. If they were targeting only political leaders/soldiers of the other side, I would disagree with their view, and think them rather stupid for continuing to fight, but I would not think them evil. However adopting terrorist tactics crosses the moral line in a very deep way which I believe is worthy of the appellation "evil". Even more so for the al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq who have made it their business to terrorize and behead uninvolved innocent persons. If that isn't "evil", then nothing is.

[vulturesrow]

MMMMMM,

Dont you get you numbskull, evil is relative! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ACPlayer]

There is no doubt that the practice of targetting civilians is objectionable whether by the insurgents (for want of a more accurate word) or the suicide bombers etc.

However, it is also equally objectionable for armies to wipe out cities (Falluja) or mete out collective punishment (WB/Gaza).


It is primarily their tactics to which I am objecting.

I am glad that your are making their tactics your primary objection (shows some evolution in your thinking /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) and not the reasons or goals.

Lastly to truly understand why they are targetting civilians it is because the region is strife with ethnic tensions for centuries. The Shia distrust the Sunni and vis-a-versa. To the Sunni who sees their survival as the goal the Shia is a valid target. Note the level of ethnic struggle just to choose the PM and President in the recent "election".

Unfortunately for the Iraqi their country has now been invaded by the AQ who have made it their battleground. They can (and do) thank America for this latest import.

[ACPlayer]

Glad we have found some more common ground.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you may be misunderstanding why I call the insurgents evil.

It is not because I view their side as "wrong" (although I do). It is rather because they are targeting and killing ANYONE they can, basically. They are killing their own countrymen, not just American soldiers; not even just government/security Iraqis, either: they are deliberately killing innocent civilian Iraqis as well. In short, they are no better than terrorists
...
It is primarily their tactics to which I am objecting. The fact that they have adopted terrorist/nihilistic tactics is what makes them evil. If they were targeting only political leaders/soldiers of the other side, I would disagree with their view, and think them rather stupid for continuing to fight, but I would not think them evil. However adopting terrorist tactics crosses the moral line in a very deep way which I believe is worthy of the appellation "evil". Even more so for the al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq who have made it their business to terrorize and behead uninvolved innocent persons. If that isn't "evil", then nothing is.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this view is that the insurgents are not one single unified group; there are several large groups and dozens of smaller ones, split between various groups of Islamists, Baathists, adn Iraqi nationalists. Not all the groups engage in the civilian attacks; indeed there's been a lot of recent reporting on some of the bigger nationalist groups issuing threats to the people engaging in the attakcs that target civilians. A recent report also showed that 75% of inusrgency attacks target occupation troops. In terms of the number of victims however, civilians and Iraqi forces have paid the highest price as they are much much softer targets than the coalition forces.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?



[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what "workers rights" exactly means, but if you mean the modern labor movement in the U.S. it has basically decimated the working middle class in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before the "modern labor movement", there was no middle class to decimate.

[adios]

The political goals of the Baathists and the radical Islamists are clear, what's not so clear are the political goals of what are referred to as the Iraqi Nationalists. Violence and destruction perpetrated against the Iraqi citizenry and Iraqi assets with no political goals is mindless and criminal. The political goals of the Baathists and radical Islamists are oppressive to say the least and evil seems an apt description to me. Nobody really can give a definitive answer on the exact makeup of the insurgency in terms of percentages. I note that attacks against U.S. troops have declined 22% since the Iraqi elections and attacks against the Iraqi citizenry and Iraqi security forces have inreased in kind. I further note that the Iraqi government has reached out to the "Nationalists" more than once with an offer of amnesty but there doesn't seem to be any movement there. I also note that the Iraqi political process gives the Kurds and Sunnis a great deal of political power. A link to the depiction of the insurgency which I think is fair:

Iraqi Insurgency (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)

From the article:

Still, the New York Times article also references military data suggesting roughly 80 percent of violent attacks in Iraq were simply criminal in nature –e.g., ransom kidnappings and hijacking convoys- and without political motivation.

Former Regime Loyalists [FRL]
Sunni Arabs, dominated by Ba’athist and Former Regime Elements (FRE), comprise the core of the insurgency.

The loyalists of the criminal Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein represent the core of the insurgency and are continuing their criminal activities in Iraq. The radical Islamics are promoting terror and murdering innocent civiliams. The insurgency is a far cry from the likes of revolutionaries that leftist propoganda portrays them as.

[adios]

The issue is whether or not the Oil-For-Food programme indicates U.N. corruption (leading as high up as Kofi Annan) and whether or not Security Council votes were comprimised by the corruption.

You totally misrepresent how sanctions came about against Iraq in previous posts. Yes the U.S. supported sanctions but so did many other countries including the voting members of the Security Council. Bush 41 was hailed as a great statesman throughout the world for the coalition that he helped organize for the conduct of Desert Storm. Witness the participation of the Desert Storm coalition members. I agree that the sanctions imposed on Iraq hurt the Iraqi people the most and I agree that they were a very bad idea. FWIW I think U.S. made major mistakes in how it proceeded leading up to Desert Storm and after.

[nicky g]

One quick point: the US and the UK pushed for the severest sanctions, blocked by far and away the most aid and essential equipment under dual use grounds (hundreds and hundred of objections compared to handfuls from other countries, if memory serves me right) and were the biggest opponents of reforming and lightening the sanctions burden.

[[censored]]

dear nicky g,

It would be helpful if you would refrain from being reasonable and making strong arguements. I have a strict policy of dismissing all views opposite of my own and I prefer this to be as easy as possible.

Please correct your problem in all future postings.

thanks

[censored]