From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 21:47:25 MST
On 4 Feb 2002 at 20:58, L' Ermit wrote:
> [Joe Dees] Iraq invaded their neighbor Kuwait, and the international
> community, led by the US but including several Muslim countries, cooperated
> in their expulsion from that land. After playing a shell game with their
> nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs for many years (and
> getting caught at it periodically), Saddam Hussein expelled UN inspectors.
> Iraq has engaged in genocide against its Shiite minority in the south and
> its Kurdish minority in the North, including the use of chemical weapons
> against them, necessitating the establishment of no-fly zones in order to
> protect the peoples indigenous to these areas (preventing some Muslims in
> that country from murdering others en masse). Arrangements have long been
> made for Iraq to sell more than ten billion (that's 10,000,000,000) dollars
> worth of their oil each year in order to feed their people, with increases
> each year; these funds have been diverted from their intended use and
> funnelled into mass-destruction weapons programs, the Iraqi military
> (notably the Republican Guards), and the rebuilding of approximately 50
> castles that Saddam Hussein has established for himself across the country,
> while his people starve. During retired Prez George Bush (41)'s visit to
> Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi-instigated and funded plot was uncovered to
> assassinate him while he was there. Several Saudi nationals were executed
> as conspirators. Our airstrikes in and near the no-fly zones are directed
> at anti-aircraft battyeries and radar installations, that co-ordinate to
> paint the US and British patrols with radar to ascertain their positions and
> then fire upon them.
>
> [Hermit] Joe, I didn't mention Iraq except in passing. We have been over
> this enough times to prove that neither of us is going to budge. There are
> always two sides to every story, and you seem to me to be propagating just
> one, and one which is so US biased that it is difficult to imagine that you
> have considered anything other than thw US stance. The difference, as I see
> it, is that I have facts to back my assertions. You appear to me to simply
> be redistributing US propaganda. Which I generally try to avoid by avoiding
> US news sources. So I get really upset when you repeat it here and then
> refuse to address basic facts which seem to me to be in conflict with your
> assetions. In order to provide you with an opportunity to do so, I will put
> out a summary of what I see as the case by "non-US" sources, although it
> must be recognized that many Americans are suggesting simillar problems. In
> this summary, I have attempted to differentiate between supported facts
> (previously cited here and readily validated from official sources), and
> general inferences and supposition, including news sources, which appear to
> me to be widely believed to be true, but where I have not verified them
> through government sources. Taken together, they make a devastating case
> against US foreign action. Even restricting it to the indisputable facts, it
> seems to me to leave your assertions appearing to be little more than
> special pleading or ignorance:
>
> [list]
> [Hermit] Fact: Since the 1950s, the US has intervened on numerous occasions
> in Iraq (amongst other nations) to overthrow the government of the day and
> ensure a government by people the US considered as friendly to their
> interests. Without US intervention, Saddam Hussein would not have come into
> power.
>
True.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: The US supported Iraq as a counter to Iran, providing weapons
> and funding to Iraq.
>
Also true; this is one of the reasons we Bush did not overthrow Saddam Hussein
during the Gulf War, the other being lack of a UN mandate to do so. Sunsequent
history has shown this inaction to have been a horrendous mistake.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: Until the Gulf War, Turkey, a vital Western ally, together
> with Iraq, conspired to manage the Kurd "problem," with full US support.
>
Here; too, I agree; the trrks captured and executed Kurdish guerilla leader Ocalan in
order to dampen Kurdish aspirations for self-determination in a territory that would
include, parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran. At 30 million, they are the globe's most
numerous stateless people. I believe that they deserve a homeland no less than the
Palestinians do.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: US based oil companies supported "slant drilling" by
> Kuwait into the Iraq oil body, which was a primary reason for the Iraq
> take-over of Kuwait.
>
This has been claimed, but slant-drilling could not tap much of iraq's oil, because it
can only extend a few miles. More plausible reasons would be Saddam Hussein's
desire to increase seaport access to the Persian gulf and to use Kuwait as a
stepping stone in a greater mission to conquer the sparsely populated but oil-rich
Arabian peninsula.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: It is alleged that the US told Iraq that border
> disputes with Kuwait were not of interest to the US and that this
> contributed directly to the invasion of Kuwait.
>
There is truth in this contention, but the last thing that the US intended was for an
Iraqi invasion to proceed. This unfortunate eventuality seems to have been
prompted by miscommunication born of sloppiness and preoccupation-induced
neglect.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: It has been proved that most of the hysteria over the
> post invasion treatment of the citizens of Kuwait was induced by the
> government of Kuwait, with at least tacit US approval.
>
There are still several thousand missing Kuwaiti citizens; they apparently were either
executed and disposed of by the Iraqis or brought beck to Iraq as prisoners.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: The US was not prepared to accept a simple retreat
> from Kuwait by Iraq, resulting in the Gulf War.
>
Iraq had six months during the build-up to withdraw; far from taking that route, they
instead asserted that Kuwait would henceforth always be a part of a Greater Iraq,
and promised the 'mother of all battles' should coalition forces endeavor to
disengage Iraq from Kuwait.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: The US based its initial attack strategy on Iraq on the
> destruction of civilian infrastructure, including water purification and
> sewage plants, knowing that this would result in massive sickness and
> death-tolls and that the majority of deaths would be civilians. This mode of
> attack was selected, approved and implemented by the US despite the fact
> that the deliberate targeting of civilian facilities is absolutely forbidden
> in terms of the UN charter.
>
Actually, the major targets were military defences and associated infrastructure, and
troop concentrations, all of which Saddam Hussein placed in direct proximity to what
he hoped would be shielding civilian infrastructure.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: It is alleged that the US was not prepared to accept a
> surrender or retreat by the Iraq army after their surrender and instead
> massacred vast numbers of them in cold-blood - again completely contrary to
> international law.
>
This is patently false; one of the major mistakes that the Coalition forces made in the
waning days of the war was to open their lines and allow the tanks and troops of the
encircled Republican Guards to return to Iraq. These troops and tanks were later
used to massacre Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: The US adopted a deliberate policy of attempting to
> destabilize Iraq and to that offer provided support to the Kurds, including
> offers of air protection.
>
A move of which I heartily approve, considering what was being done by the Iraqis to
their northern Kurdish minority (including chemical warfare butchery and the
wholesale genocidal destruction of entire Kurdish communities).
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: A Kurdish insurrection resulted, whereupon Turkey
> objected to the support for the Kurds and the US immediately abandoned them,
> resulting in massive retaliation by Iraq and a huge Kurdish death toll -
> exacerbated by massive Turkish campaigns against the Kurds, to which the US
> has turned a blind eye.
>
Of this I am truly ashamed; we should've continued until an autonomous Kurdish
homeland was established. We turned our backs upon those whom we had
befriended and who were helping us with our common objectives. Kinda like we did
with Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout. I sincerely hope that we've learned the dire
consequences of such behavior now and will not repeat such travestous debacles in
the future.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: Every attempt to lift the sanctions on water purification
> equipment or chemicals has been blocked by the US.
>
Mainly because of the chemical-weapons uses to which much of it could (and most
likely would) be put.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: Every attempt to investigate any aspect of the above by the
> UN has been blocked by the US using its Security Council vetoes.
>
Mainly because several countries there (most notably Russia) possess massive
economic incentives favoring sanction-lifting regardless of the threat Iraq poses in
the region. They wish to legislate a global community 'blind eye' toward such
dangers for pecuniary reasons.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: According to UNICEF, the sanctions have, to date, contributed
> to the deaths of in excess of half a million children under the age of five.
>
If this includes starvation, that is laid quite properly at the feet of saddam Hussein,
who starved his people to fortify his military.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: The US knew and knows that these children are dying, and is
> not taking action to prevent this.
>
Whaddaya call the agreement to allow those gigabucks of oil to be sold for food and
medical supplies; chopped liver?
>
> [Hermit] Fact: When the US claims that the collapse is caused by the Iraq
> government misspending the money they receive, this is entirely dishonest.
> In the 4˝ years of the "oil for food program" up to July 2001 (which is the
> last date for which I found information), sales of oil from Iraq generated a
> total of $ 44.4 billion in sales in the period December '96 to July 2001. Of
> this, the United Nations Compensation Commission in Geneva retained $0.30
> per dollar (or $ 13.32 billion) to defray claims made by governments,
> companies and individuals who feel that they were victimized as a result of
> the invasion of Kuwait, leaving an amount of $31 billion. Of this, only half
> had been paid to Iraq ($13.5 billion). In Saudi Arabia, with access to
> modern equipment, the cost of oil recovery and handling makes up 60% of the
> net exported value. If we assume the same figure for Iraq that means the
> cost of production in the same period was 26.64 billion, leaving a shortfall
> of around $13 billion rather than any net income. Even if we ignore
> production costs, if you divide $13.5 billion by 20 million people, that
> yields $675/person over the 4.5 year period - or about $150 per person per
> year.
>
That is enough to feed the people in that reason, considering what dollars are worth
and what foodstuffs cost there. Plus, iraq does include the Tigris-Euphrates valley,
and historically produces most of its own food (when resources to do so are not
diverted for military purposes).
>
> [Hermit] Fact: In the US, King County has an annual budget of $ 2.8 billion
> to sustain the infrastructure for 1.7 million people. Iraq is offered 10
> billion to sustain 20 million and to pay for the oil industry that generates
> the money. In reality that number is closer to $ 3 billion, given the much
> higher costs of dealing with Iraq and their aging infrastructure. Are you
> beginning to see a picture here? In the US infrastructure costs in King
> County are $ 1,647 per person. In Iraq, total GDP per person is somewhere
> between $130 and $200 per year. Note that, excluding the issue of production
> costs; this is the entire amount that Iraqi civilians have received under
> the oil for food program per person per year. This is not paid to the
> population; it is to enable the importation of food, medicines, water
> purification and sanitation, agricultural equipment and supplies,
> electricity generation, civil infrastructure and education. Florida has, per
> capita, more water than Iraq. What was your water bill last year?
>
Differences in the value of money in different parts of the world, combined with the
potential for domestic food production, render this argument specious and rhetorical.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: On the 5th of December 2001, the US ambassador to the
> Security Council, went before the Chamber to say that the US government is
> satisfied that the "oil for food" program meets the needs of the Iraqi
> people. Being able to do basic arithmetic, I find this unlikely. Sanctions
> always mean starving the poor until the rich surrender. For example, in 1987
> UNESCO recognized that Iraq was the country that had made most progress in
> combating illiteracy). Today illiteracy in Iraq is back to 45% and rising.
> US sanctions have meant that there is no longer a middle class or
> professional class in Iraq. This practically guarantees poverty and social
> unrest there for the next 40 to 60 years.
>
There are only two classes in Iraq; the extended family and military of Saddam
Hussein, and everybody else. he has engineered a Spartan culture where if you're
not a soldier or one of his pampered family than you're a worthless (to him, except
for propaganda purposes if he lets you starve) peon.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: There are Americans who claim that their foreign policy does
> not encourage terrorism.
>
Some does, some doesn't. The only ways that Iraq can rejoin the community of
nations are to either depose the Hussein family and institute a democratically
elected republic in place of their military junta, and to allow the UN inspectors back
in with no shell games, and honestly destroy the WMD's they have so far
accumulated and end the programs designed to develop and make more.
>
> [Hermit} Supposition: This requires a degree of stupidity, ignorance or
> self-delusion far exceeding the ordinary.
>
So does the correlatively opposite contention that ALL US foreign policy encourages
terrorism and that the countries from which it issues have nothing whatsoever to do
with it, a position which I doubt that you would assume.
>
> [Hermit] Supposition: The fact that Islamic Nations which have advanced from
> primitive societies to approach industrialization (Iran, Libya, Iraq) appear
> to have suffered from sanctions which have reversed this progress leads one
> to surmise that this is not happenstance.
>
After taking power in a military coup in 1968 and nationalizing the oil industry there,
Libya's Moammar Qadaffi sponsored several terrorist actions, including the bombing
of a Berlin nightclub frequented by US military personnel, the Gulf of Sidra attacks,
and the bombing of Flight 107 over Lockerbie, Scotland; he seems, however, like
Castro, to be mellowing with age (but not enough to allow free elections in either
case).
Iran held 55 American hosteges for 444 days, calls us the Great Satan, and even
recently are said to have not only allowed Al-Quaeda leaders to escape Afghanistan
via their country and overseen the creation, training and supply of forces hostile to
the Karzai interim government there, but also to have harbored the Lebanese
terrorist Imad Mugniyeh (the architect of the Beirut embassy and marine barracks
truckbombings as well as the hijacking of TWA flight 847) and allowed him to attempt
to secretly ship 50 tons of heavy weapos to a Palestinian Authority that was publicly
buffing olive branches. As long as the hard-line cleric Ayatolluh Khameneii rather
than the popularly elected president Khatami holds the real power there, they will be
a source of terrorism throughout the middle east. I would definitely love to see that
balance of power shift for the benefit of everyone (except for the radical imams), both
inside and outside Iran.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: According to UN studies, the primary motivation for terrorism
> is economic disparity. The annual UN Human Development Report reflects that
> there are 357 billionaires in this world that own 45 percent of global
> wealth. There are 1.5 billion people (mainly in Africa) who subsist on under
> a dollar a day. 81% of global income occurs in 26 countries. In Japan people
> have a life expectancy of 80 years. In Malawi 29. The US has done nothing to
> address this escalating problem, preferring to spend more per year on
> military capability than development programs. This is exceedingly obvious
> when we realize that the US delivers the least per capita in foreign aid of
> all industrialized nations, and over 60% of that aid goes to Israel –
> bringing their average annual income up to just below that of the UK, while
> the Israelis destroy the resources and infrastructure of the Palestine (and
> of Israel).
>
There are much poorer areas of the world that neither sponsor global terrorism not
populate the ranks of terrorists with their citizens. This has something to do with
poverty, but also with the Muslim concept of the world as divided into Dar-El-Islamii
(the world of islam) and Dar-El-Harb (the world of war), and the marriage system,
which permits rich muslims to marry up to four wives, while poor Muslims cannot
afford to marry even one from the depleted stock left (lacking a bride price), so that
they feel an even greater urge to die killing unbelievers in order to enjoy the
ministrations of 72 perpetually reinhymenated virgins.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has
> the provision that all people have the right to realize their full
> potential. The US is denying that right to Iraq. Just as the US has
> previously and is currently denying that right to Libya and Iran.
>
Since their leaders have historically considered the sponsorship of international
terrorism to be part and parcel of their respective countries 'being all that they can
be', certain self-actualizing moves they might take do less than thrill me.
>
> Just as
> the US has ignored UN resolution after resolution calling on Israel to stop
> denying this right to the Palestinians.
>
The US has come out in support of a Palestinian state; it cannot be, however, a
launching pad fpr continued hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP and Al Aqsa
Brigades attacks upon Israel. I have severe problems with those who equate Israel's
targeted killings of those who suicide bomb their citizens and those who recruit them
and wire them up with most Palestinian suicide bombers' and machine gunners' goal
(to kill as many Israelis as possible, but usually civilians at nightclubs, in school
buses, or celebrating bat mitzvas - a bar mitzva for an adolescent girl).
>
> Just as the US appears to have lost
> all support for her actions in Iraq – even from her allies during the war.
>
I think that this is wishful thinking on your part. But even if it were true, if the clear
and present danger of them making WMD's to use on us, or to supply terrorists to
use on us, is ascertained, we should go it alone rather than wait for another
domestic massacre like the one in New York to justify us before world opinion.
>
> Just as the US appears to be currently losing support in her “war on terror”
> for her callous and possibly illegal treatment of prisoners from
> Afghanistan.
>
That tempest in a teapot has died down since we allowed international observers to
inspect the conditions there. People saw the tabloid pictures of shackled,
bemittened Al-Quaeda with their eyes and ears covered and sensationalist headlines
screaming torture and stampeded to the conclusion that it must be true; in fact, the
most noninvasive manner in which one can prevent a prisoner from attacking guards
is to 1) hinder their movements so that cannot act to attack and 2) cover their
percpetual apparati so they cannot locate guards to attack. These people are still
pubicly saying that they consider the murder of Americans to be their holy duty and
that they will endeavor to fulfill that duty for the balance of their days; one prisoner
has already Mike-Tysoned a guard. Hardy minimum security candidates.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: The House of Saud are calling for the US to leave from Saudi
> Arabia, and US Defense analysis recommendations are to implement a
> withdrawal as expedititiously as possible in order to minimize the
> probability of insurrection or further collapse of relations.
>
Some people within that family of 30,000 have anonymously expressed such desires
to interviewers; the public position of the Saudi government and of Prince Bandar is
that they desire us to remain.
>
> [Hermit] Fact: Unless you can counter the above, I will consider your
> position on these issues to be irrational, and suggest that there is a
> strong case to believe that the US Goverment is in fact a far greater danger
> to life and happiness on this planet than all the Islamic nations put
> together - and oh - please notice, no mention of religion in the above.
> Religion is, I assert, irrelevent to this problem.
> [/list]
>
I have indeed quite effectively countered the above, point by point, and firthermore
assert that if you do not see the violent and virulent nature of that particular terrorist
mutation of the Islameme to be relevant, even in the face of all those terrorist
participants claiming that it is THE reason they seek to kill us, I suggest that you
have superglued your pet memetic filters to your cognitive eyes in such a fashion
that they serve as blinders. I see your position that Christians are to be excoriated,
as Christians, for the same type of behavior that Muslims commit in spades, while
dismissing the expressed (in the Koran and beau coup Muslim pronouncements)
linkage between the behavior and a radical subset of the faith, as illogical, irrational,
and unreasonable in the extreme. Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
>
> Hermit
>
> PS Dr Sebby and Co, I'll try to answer you when this latest round of Islamic
> futility is dealt with. In the meantime, read the last chapter of my
> original Afghan proposal.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT