More good news about Iraq.

[The once and future king]

Apparently the choco ration is up to 37 grams.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently the choco ration is up to 37 grams.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much choco did the average Iraqi family enjoy before Saddam was deposed?

I recall reading, perhaps a decade or so ago, that the average Iraqi family could afford to eat one chicken per month.

I'm not being being facetious or anything, I just don't know the answer. How much of that do you think was due to the sanctions?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading, perhaps a decade or so ago, that the average Iraqi family could afford to eat one chicken per month.



[/ QUOTE ] I'm not being being facetious or anything, I just don't know the answer. How much of that do you think was due to the sanctions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know either, but my guess is not much: because even with the sanctions, Saddam found ample money to build lavish palaces, to fund his military, to erect many giant statues of himself, and to bribe corrupt U.N. officials.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently the choco ration is up to 37 grams.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much choco did the average Iraqi family enjoy before Saddam was deposed?

I recall reading, perhaps a decade or so ago, that the average Iraqi family could afford to eat one chicken per month.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously missed the literary reference in my thread, which makes your reply very though unintentionally funny.

You don't think the sanctions had much of a deleterious effect on the population? Everything I've ever read about them has said that they were worse off after the sanctions than before, especially with oil for food being a pile of [censored]. I don't really think it makes a difference if Saddam was rich himself. Tyrants won't change their ways in the face of a suffering population. He had a lot to do with it, admittedly, and I'm sure he could've alleviated the suffering caused by the sanctions if he used resources fairly. Anyways, I think that kind of proves my point a little bit. The sanctions didn't really harm him; he let the population take the brunt of it, which could've been expected.

Even Albright admits the effects of the sanctions on the population:

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”"

[MMMMMM]

timotheeee, sorry but this has been discussed at enormous length in the archives and in multiple threads and I'm not about to rehash it all in depth again now.

You expressed a wondering as to the extent. So did I, although I think it was probably not a great deal. Also my understanding was that the sanctions purportedly did more harm regarding drinking water, and to children, than to general food availability.

By the way I don't think the sanctions were a good idea. I also think Saddam used them for political gain and could have helped his people instead of doing what he did. And in more cynical moments I suspect that he preferred to let those children die in order to make a political issue in order to get the sanctions lifted.

Anyway that's just my take and I don't have any inclination to reopen the debate in this thread. You might want to search the archives over the last few years though if you have a keen interest in this.

[MMMMMM]

Yes I missed the reference. Would you care to elaborate?

[The once and future king]

Watch the film 1984 and all will be revealed.

[Felix_Nietsche]

In the WSJ article it noted that in times of uncertainty, people buy gold and shun real estate. In times of boom, the opposite occurs. In Iraq and Afganistan there is a building boom. Even shanty houses in the slums of Baghdad are selling for $45,000 which is a King's ransome in Iraq.

Based on this premise, it seems like hope among the average Iraqis is on the rise......

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch the film 1984 and all will be revealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very likely that I read the book before you did: we read the book in junior high school, but that was over 30 years ago and I'm afraid my memory isn't that perfect. So, what's the reference to choco?

BTW, the same teacher also had us read Catch-22 and Lord of the Flies. Good junior high school reading, I guess.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch the film 1984 and all will be revealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly, you tried to make a subtle literary reference, and mocked MMMMMM for missing it, based on the movie version of 1984?? I searched the online version of the book and found no instance of the word "choco"...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Watch the film 1984 and all will be revealed.

[/ QUOTE ]



If I understand correctly, you tried to make a subtle literary reference, and mocked MMMMMM for missing it, based on the movie version of 1984?? I searched the online version of the book and found no instance of the word "choco"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think that's what he tried to do, heh.

I'll go ahead and guess that choco is short for chocolate. Now if he had made this reference and we were all sitting around carrying on this conversation back in the 70's, I'm sure I would remember that detail, whatever it is about;-) But I suppose early senility must be setting in, because for the life of me I can't remember a reference to choco in that book...

...or, maybe he meant "ration" was the reference. That might be it, but that might indicate quite a number of other literary works too, hmmm....

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Watch the film 1984 and all will be revealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly, you tried to make a subtle literary reference, and mocked MMMMMM for missing it, based on the movie version of 1984?? I searched the online version of the book and found no instance of the word "choco"...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had actualy read the book (instead of searching the internet version LOL) the reference would have still been immediately and obviously clear even if I am not quoting the book verbatim. I suggested Metc watch the film as this would be quicker than reading the book. If he were to do either my intentions (to parody the good news Iraq thread) would be immediately made clear. As it is a refrence to how news is presented in the Orwelian world of 1984.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggested Metc watch the film as this would be quicker than reading the book. If he were to do either my intentions (to parody the good news Iraq thread) would be immediately made clear. As it is a refrence to how news is presented in the Orwelian world of 1984.

[/ QUOTE ]


As I've already explained: I read the book probably about 30+ years ago, around the age of 13 or 14--yet all you are *continuing* to do is make snide remarks when I ask for clarification to help place your exact reference?

Yes, I remember the various "Ministries,", and "Doublespeak" and "Newspeak" and all that...but no reference to choco rations.

But never mind. I don't see why I should continue trying to discuss this with someone who is obviously merely trying to be an ass. Sadly this does not reflect at all well on your personality. And unfortunately, that's not doublespeak.

[bobman0330]

I've read the book (although I'm not obsessed with it like the vast majority of teenagers and twentysomethings), i'm just trying to figure out why you wrote "choco" instead of chocolate. I'm assuming that's what they say in the movie, which makes it a bit weird. It could be that you feel a need to abbreviate words at random, which would also be a bit weird.

[The once and future king]

I know you read it ages ago. Anyone who had read it recently or seen the film recently would get my reference I wouldnt expect anyone who had read it 30 years ago to get the refrence. So the word I should have used was reread, my deepest apologies. I am not making snide remarks just suggesting a course of action to remedy your mis- understanding of my intial post. If you think Im going look Metc hasnt read 1984 snarf chuckle then you must be deeply sensitive.

Did you and Bobman meet at pedants and hypocrites anyomous?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read the book (although I'm not obsessed with it like the vast majority of teenagers and twentysomethings), i'm just trying to figure out why you wrote "choco" instead of chocolate. I'm assuming that's what they say in the movie, which makes it a bit weird. It could be that you feel a need to abbreviate words at random, which would also be a bit weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Newspeak dictionary. (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/)

Chocorat: Chocolate ration. The chocolate ration in 1983 was 30 grams per week. (For comparison, a standard Hershey's Chocolate Bar is 43 grams) In the year 1984, the chocolate ration went up to 25 grams per week. Winston himself is charged with the task of re-writing history to make this little feat possible.
NOTE: The book differs slightly from the movie on this. In the book, the the ration was changed to 25 grams as well, but instead or changing history to say that it went up to 25, Winston simply altered the original 'no-reduction' pledge to state that the ration would have to come down in April.

So instead of abbreivating at random I didnt abbrevaite enough. The word used in the book is "Chocorat". So I got the chocolate to choco right but didnt missed abbreviating ration to rat.

I assume you know what pawned means?

[bobman0330]

This is a silly argument, but I will point out that neither "choco" nor "chocorat" appear in the book 1984. There's a searchable version on that website of yours.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a silly argument, but I will point out that neither "choco" nor "chocorat" appear in the book 1984. There's a searchable version on that website of yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, now this is getting actually funny.