From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3183979.stm --snip--- Mr Bremer said in an interview for the Washington Post that it would take $2bn to restore the Iraqi national electricity grid by next summer and about $13bn over five years to overhaul it completely. Supplying clean water nationwide would cost an additional $16bn over four years. --snip--- It might be worthwhile to note that there is documented evidence that the Iraqi civic infrastructure was crippled by a decade of UN sanctions (so vociferously supported by US and its allies). http://www.rupe-india.org/34/contents.html81 responses total.
Now, this may be somewhat of stretch to handle, but exactly why were the sanctions enacted? And, if Saddam was able to spend all that $$ he did on his own luxuries, loot the national treasury, and support a huge military, do you really think that using fund to maintain the national infrastucture was really a concern of his?
I agree. A leader interested in the welfare of his country could have strengthened the infrastructure of his country even with the sanctions (though there would have been no sanctions if Iraq had had such a leader).
What's a "bn"? I grok $2B (B as in Billion), the "$" assumed to be US dollars. But "b*n*"?
what's "grok">
Grok is very hard to define, the easiest way to understand it is to read Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"
It means "understand" bascially. See the jargon File for a more detailed definition.
This response has been erased.
Partly because after seeing that the sanctions were doing nothing but hurting the Iraqi people, we kept them in place. Thus we punished primarily those that were already suffering while doing nothing to chnage that which made them suffer. Also, America did support Hussein for some time . . . its hard for a lot of people to believe we despise him for his actions rather than for his usefulness as a scapegoat. He was a vicious person even when he was our political ally regardless of the way he treated his people. That is enough to throw suspicion on our motives and gives some weight to the people who blame America for such dictators.
I wouldn't blame the current lack of infrastructure in Iraq on Saddam entirely because I was in Iraq before the first Gulf war. Back then, they had clean water supplies, a reliable electricity grid, good roads, enough hospitals and other civic infrastrucuture. So even after stuffing his pockets, Saddam spent enough money on modernising Iraq. The sanctions blocked the import of basic things like Chlorine for water purification. There is a list of non-military infrastructure that was systematically destroyed by the allied bombing. Allied intelligence was also well aware of the crippling implications the sanctions would have on the Iraqi civic infrastructure. However, all that was ignored. Even if you ignore the fact that the destruction of Iraqi civic infrastructure resulted from sanctions, where do you think the required billions are going to come from now?? I again recommend that you read the report prepared by RUPE. To me, the most shocking part of the report was: On May 12 1996, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl of CBS television: We have heard that half a million children have died (due to sanctions). I mean, that s more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Albright replied: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.
RE# 4,5 and 6 It is best defined by the greek word "epignosis" gnosis means to know epignosis means a total understanding. Anyways "grok" is so....seventies
This response has been erased.
Re: 8 - well, we certainly took care of the underlying problem earlier this year, now didn't we? What's interesting to note is that after Saddam was gone, there was opposition among some in the UN to lifting the sanctions promptly.
*grok* is so....manson family.
Re #9: You don't need chlorine gas to purify water; you could just as easily (if not as cheaply) use hypochlorite (bleach), which is not usable as a poison gas. Re #12: Yup, all the folks who had deals smuggling stuff to Saddam didn't want to cut off their own gravy train.
Re #11, The civic infrastructure in Iraq prior to the first Gulf war WAS put in place by the Saddam regime. In the early 80s, Iraq wasn't a very modernsed nation. Baghdad itself didn't have proper civic infrastructure. It was Saddam's regime that significantly modernised Iraq. Ofcourse, its not Chlorine gas but Iraq's sanitation systems required special equipment and chemicals that were banned by the UN embargo. (See the snip from the report below). Russ, it does sound heartless because in the decade of the sanctions, half a million Iraqi children died from malnutrition and disease. The sanctions were indeed put in place by the UN but it was the US and its allies that blocked any relaxation in sanctions. US opposes lifting of Iraq sanctions Iraq-USA, Politics, 4/24/1998 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980424/1998042437.html Re #11 and #14, I guess you didn't read the above mentioned report so let me post bits from it. *WARNING* - This is a very long post. From "Behind the Invasion of Iraq" ---snip--- The bombing of Iraq began on January 16, 1991. Far from restricting themselves to evicting Iraq from Kuwait, or attacking only military targets, the US-led coalition s bombing campaign systematically destroyed Iraq s civilian infrastructure, including electricity generation, communication, water and sanitation facilities. For more than a month the bombing of Iraq continued without any attempt to send in troops for the purported purpose of Operation Desert Storm , namely, to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait. That the US was quite clear about the consequences of such a bombing campaign is evident from intelligence documents now being declassified. Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities , dated January 22, 1991 (a week after the war began) provides the rationale for the attack on Iraq s water supply treatment capabilities: Iraq depends on importing specialised equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply... With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease. Imports of chlorine, the document notes, had been placed under embargo and recent reports indicate that the chlorine supply is critically low. A loss of water treatment capability was already in evidence, and though there was no danger of a precipitous halt , it would probably take six months or more for the system to be fully degraded . Even more explicitly, the US Defence Intelligence Agency wrote a month later that Conditions are favourable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing... Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems. (S. Muralidharan, Frontline, 12/10/01; Thomas J. Nagy, The Secret Behind the Sanctions , The Progressive, September 2001 [the online version of this article provides links to the original documents.]) In the south of Iraq, the US fired more than one million rounds (more than 340 tonnes in all) of munitions tipped with radioactive uranium. This later resulted in a major increase in health problems such as cancer and deformities. While the US has not admitted any linkage between its use of depleted uranium (DU) shells and such health problems, European governments, investigating complaints from their veterans in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, have confirmed widespread radiation contamination in Kosovo as a result of the use of DU shells there. The US tried to limit the definition of humanitarian goods to food and medicine alone, preventing the import of items needed to restore water supply, sanitation, electrical power, even medical facilities. Among the items kept out by American veto, on the grounds that they might have a military application, were chemicals, laboratory equipment, generators, communications equipment, ambulances (on the pretext that they contain communications equipment), chlorinators, and even pencils (on the pretext that they contain graphite, which has military uses). (Arnove, p. 17) The US and Britain placed holds on $5.3 billion worth of goods in early 2002 alone. (MERIP, p. 8) Even this does not tell the full impact, since the item held back often renders imports of other parts useless. In 1998, the UN carried out a nationwide survey of health and nutrition. It found that mortality rates among children under five in central and southern Iraq had doubled from the previous decade. That would suggest 500,000 excess deaths of children by 1998. Excess deaths of children continue at the rate of 5,000 a month. UNICEF estimated in 2002 that 70 per cent of child deaths in Iraq result from diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections. This is the result as foretold accurately by US intelligence in 1991 of the breakdown of systems to provide clean water, sanitation, and electrical power. Adults too, particularly the elderly and other vulnerable sections, have succumbed. The overall toll, of all ages, was put at 1.2 million in a 1997 UNICEF report. The evidence of the effect of the sanctions came from the most authoritative sources. Denis Halliday, UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq from 1997 to 1998, resigned in protest against the operation of the sanctions, which he termed deliberate genocide . He was replaced by Hans von Sponeck, who resigned in 2000, on the same grounds. Jutta Burghardt, director of the UN World Food Programme operation in Iraq, also resigned, saying that I fully support what Mr von Sponeck was saying. ---snip---
The above is not to say that Saddam is not responsible for the state in which Iraq is today but that the US, intentionally, only added to woes of the Iraqi people.
I think the idea was the same as what we've been trying on Cuba. You can't assassinate the leader, because that's illegal, but you can make the whole population suffer and hope that one of them will do it for you. It's a sort of collective punishment. In the case of Cuba, though, it seems to have only made the population angry at *us*.
Iraq needs the L--d is what it needs.
This response has been erased.
yes, it is.
This response has been erased.
I read that. I especially liked how according to the Shariat, a gestation period of 5 years was considered normal after a divorce or something like that. The only reason I'm glad they believe that bull is because it helps prevent the sentencing to go into effect. I'm sorry if I hurt feelings here, but Islamic Law, or at least the Shariat, is just a load of bull
it's medieval, just like alot of christianity.
What's "bn"? ;-)
A lot more medieval than most of Christianity.
This response has been erased.
Re #19, if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam's Baath party to power all this would've never happened. Read the history of Iraq. Its full of manipulation, first by the British and then (and now) by the US.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
No doubt it's emotionally satisfying to slam sj2 for the historical failings of the Indian government but how exactly is that relevant?
This response has been erased.
Does that mitigate the severity of the US's failings or does it just give us leave to tell those uppity foreigners to shut up because they're no better?
This response has been erased.
Someone car bombed a Shiite mosque during prayers today. 17+ dead, 100+ dead/injured. On the assumption that it wasn't Americans, my first though was it was Sunis, the sect associated with Saddam Hussein's admin.
This response has been erased.
Re #31, #33: Turn that logic around, Dan. You've entered posts critical of the Palestinians. Shouldn't you be posting criticisms of the US as well, in the interest of fairness?
This response has been erased.
Cross, besides what's said above, what happens or happened in India, is a)on a small scale compared to what's being discussed here, and b) affects India itself, unlike what we're discussing where it's affecting more than just US. India has never been the one putting on the mantle of big brother, and taking it upon herself to "protect" all other countries from their evil dictators. You're not quite comparing apples to apples here. Tod, by the 5 year gestation period, I mean that the Shariat believes that the woman can be pregnant for upto 5 years after her divorce, and then have a child. Don't look at me, that's what they belive
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
If you read my posts carefully, I am always been sharply critical of politicians everywhere. And I have never failed to admit the atrocities commmitted by Indian politicians too. Being an Indian, I know better than you the atrocities committed by them, be it Punjab or the back- stabbing of the Indian army by its PM in SriLanka. But I fail to see how does that justify what US is doing? Re #33, Cross, why don't you post a fact (not an opinion) I posted and I will try to dig the sources behind it. Of late, I've posted a lot of material from the RUPE's "Behind the Invarion of Iraq". If you question their sources, I would advise you to read their report and follow the sources they have mentioned in their report. "and all they wanted was an autonomous state ". Would you grant autonomy to Texas if they demanded it? Why would a sovreign nation not thwart designs of a separatist movement? I will tell you why its our business to butt in US-Pakistan relationships!! Because those missiles fired at our crafts in Kashmir by terrorists are Stinger missiles manufactured in the US of A!!! THAT IS WHY!!! From Patton tanks to F-16s, the equipment used by the Pakistani Army to fight us it supplied by the US of A.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
When you couldn't argue on the US-Iraq issue, you shift the arguement to India/Kashmir. *sigh* Maybe you don't read what I write. So I will write again. I am sharply critical of politicians who screw people irrespective of their nationality. So, yes, I blame the Indian politicians for the mess but that doesn't absolve the US of the its wrong-doings. About Punjab, the state has no signs of a separatists movement anymore. The population participates in state and national elections now. Enough proof that the state chose to stay in the Union and the separatist movement had no mass support. Further, I am prepared to argue if you wish to defend the US's doings in Iraq/Middle-East. However, if you want to argue about India/kashmir/Pakistan, I suggest you start another thread; I will be glad to post there.
To summarize, sj2, your arguement is that prior to GulfWar-I (lets hope there isn't III, inshallah) Iraq had generally a modern ifrastructure (other than just about all municipalities dumping raw sewage in the rivers) despite the regime's practice of diverting funds towards its own ends (even a glutton can only eat so much). Such was probably the case. However, you seem to ignore the fact that subsequent to the temporary halting of active hostilities (the armastice in '91) a state of 'cause belli' (war) existed between Iraq and the US et al and technically existed up until the recent events. Thus the degradation in infrastructure (while at the same time personally benefiting) is clearly the fault of the former Iraqi regime's failure to live up to what it agreed to do. The fault/blame for the current situation is clearly that of the former regime not the US et al (and many of the 'et al' were more than happy to play off the book games for their own personal/national benefit). I also think it is fair to say that the US has no territorial ambitions in Iraq. Indeed, I'd say it doesn't even care that much about the oil as the vast majority of that is shipped to other nations (including India I might point out).
Ahh!! I see the light. While other nations are selfish and petty, its only the US that always heroically steps in to save the downtrodden and liberate them from misery. And the US does all this with a spirit of self-less devotion to the cause of humanity and democracy?? I am all choked and teary-eyed. Hang on, so why did this great nation systematically bomb the Iraqi infrastructure? http://www.rupe-india.org/34/torment.html Why did the US create the "Highway of Death"? http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html The media management? http://www.pearsoncollege.ca/media_criticism/02hreadgulfwar.html The massacre of fleeing Iraqi soldiers? Violation of International treaties and again destruction of Iraqi civic infrastructure? http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjunrefl961.html Overlooking the disastrous consequences of the sanctions? http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.h tml Why did three heads of the UN Aid programme in Iraq resigned terming the sanctions as genocide? Can you explain these?
This response has been erased.
(NB: Texas seceded from the Union circa 1860 and was not allowed to leave, just like the other States that seceded.)
This response has been erased.
(I believe Texas can also remain and split itself up into four new States if I am not mistaken.)
Re #48, Even if I accept that several thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed within the norms and international treaties, you've just answered to one of the many facts of US-Iraq issue. Maybe you didn't read the others. Regarding RUPE's report - You're questioning their conclusions which is fine by me. Try explaining the facts they've put in the report. Or try explaining the facts posted in the other links. You can assume whatever you feel like, doesn't matter to me. "Btw- fewer people died in that attack than material, though the media decided to portray it as a bloodbath." - Would you support that with facts please? "I suppose if ....... that you do." - At best, its speculation.
This response has been erased.
How do you know he's not already doing that? Such efforts would probably not be visible on Grex.
This response has been erased.
I don't see any reasons at all why a person from country A, which may have a nest of problems of its own, shouldn't be free to criticize the problems of country B without being taken to task for doing so. If the subject of the discussion is the problems of country B, the discussion should stick to the subject, and attempts to divert the discussion to irrelevances concerning country A should be ignored.
This response has been erased.
Few of us can do anything to deal with anyone else's problems and it isn't easy to deal with our own. How are you expecting anyone to deal with their country's problems? But there is no harm in people opining and suggesting solutions to anyone's problems and I don't think they have to give equal time to everyone else's problems, or even those of their own country. There is no hypocracy in this.
This response has been erased.
"so any amount of opining is just letting off steam" Is it really true that you express no opinions about anything you are not actively trying to change? And do you count expressing an opinion as an act of change? Seems like a very narrow use of brain power.
This response has been erased.
So now it is just a problem with someone else's enthusiasm? Of course, you never rail, do you?
Actually, I think it is sometimes easier to see problems in other countries because it is easier to have an objective view of another country. So, I think it is valuable for outsiders to point out what those problems are. I find out a lot about the USA from reading the foreign press. And while I *could* dismiss what they write because they also have problems in their own countries, it seems more helpful if I listen to them.
To clarify resp:42 and others - Texas would not be able to leave the Union, only to form new states, not to exceed four in number, under the annexation resolution. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/
As regards living in the country and picking up on local media sentiment, I live in the US, and I see a definite increase in anti-US sentiment thanks to the policies of the present govt. My two cents worth.
This response has been erased.
"Officials here [in Baghdad] say that some basic infrastructure severely damaged during or since the war - as well as utilities neglected under the old regime - is expected to remain unrepaired. These include utilities, leaving many Iraqis with worse standards of living than they had under Saddam Hussein." -- http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p01s03-woiq.html
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
> Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a > barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place > else. I sense a flaw in this plan...
Authorize and encourage the manufacture of nuclear powered cars. (Most of it is old tech, from circa 1915 or so.) Fund research on hydrogen-boron fission and neon-sodium cycle catalytic hydrogen fusion.
I sense a flaw in this plan..too
This isn't clever enough to be Robin Williams. Not even close.
Well, it might be *a* Robin Williams, but there's no way it's *the* Robin Williams.
#4 is quite fascist.
Robin Williams as in the comedian? Never seen his stand-up, so can't comment on the cleverness
Not Robin Williams: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp
Sorry, I was away. Let me clarify a few things first. I am NOT some uppity foreigner for I NEVER claimed any higher moral ground. I DO NOT claim that India in anyway is morally superior to any other country in the world or that the US is in any way morally inferior to any other country in the world. Each country pursues a foreign policy that serves its interests best. I am told that is a basic tenet of diplomacy and foreign policy. I also DO NOT claim that we do not have a significant mess to clear at home. However, I fail to see what does that have to do with the US's failings?? Further, I did NOT refuse to discuss India's failings. I merely asked for a separate post (which Dan ignored) so that there is clarity in arguing. Start a thread called "India's failings" and you will see plenty of posts from me. Dan - RUPE's facts are corroborated. Look at the references at the end of the report. They are drawn from various independant media and government sources.
(BTW, my use of the deliberately provocative phrase "uppity foreigners" in #32 was intended to underscore what I considered the offensively partronizing nature of the posts I was responding to by pointing out just how rude the sentiment was, not to indicate that that is how I feel. Judging by most of the responses which followed (#33 excepted) I think the term was widely read the way I intended it but its reappearance in #77 makes me wonder if sj2 realizes that that was a sarcastic dig at Dan Cross's sentiments and not a poke at sj2.)
Ummm .... I might have missed the sarcasm due to either or all of the undermentioned: 1. I am slow ;-) 2. Cultural difference 3. English isn't my native language 4. The medium doesn't allow for body language, facial expressions or tone of the voice to be judged. I am more inclined towards 1 & 4 :D offensively partronizing nature of the posts?? Rude sentiments??
I realize it's a lot harder to pick up on sarcasm in a text-only forum, particularly when the conversation is not in your native language. That's why I thought I should clarify..
Appreciate the thought and the effort.
You have several choices: