From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 01:43:25 MST
[Hermit 2] Excellent response as always. In the interests of time, forgive
me if I snip the concurred items and opinions and continue only with "issues
in contention."
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2*] 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 2] Refer [url]http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm[/url] Iraq has
suggested that the level of theft is some 300,000 barrels a day. At
[url]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html[/url] it
suggests a 1990 value of $14 billion a year. Then from
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html[/url] we see that this is on
a total production by Iraq of around 2.5 million barrels per day. Thus
around 12% of Iraq's production capacity. This is significant in anybody's
language.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] I quote
[url]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html[/url]:
[quote] The most famous example of that is the meeting between Saddam and
the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, five days before Iraq invaded
Kuwait. As CIA satellite photos showed an Iraqi invasion force massing on
the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie told Hussein that "the US takes no position" on
Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. A few days later, during last-minute
negotiations, Kuwait's foreign minister said: "We are not going to respond
to [Iraq]....If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory....We are
going to bring in the Americans." The US reportedly encouraged Kuwait's
attitude. Pitting the two countries against each other was nothing new. Back
in 1989, CIA Director William Webster advised Kuwait's security chief to
"take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq to put
pressure on Iraq.'' At the same time, a CIA-linked think tank was advising
Saddam to put pressure on the Kuwaitis.
[/quote]
[Hermit 2] This appears to be a more than ordinary "miscommunication born of
sloppiness and preoccupation-induced neglect". Indeed there are claims that
the US was involved in orchestrating the entire affair, including luring
Iraq into attacking Kuwait. Claims that I currently find dubious, but not
completely beyond the realms of possibility. Ask me in 50 years time.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] My contention is not that there were problems with an abrogation
of human rights, particularly during and post the Gulf war, but rather that
the pre-war hysteria was developed based on Kuwaiti sourced propaganda.
Refer e.g. [url]http://mediafilter.org/MFF/Hill&Knowlton.htmll][quote]
On October 10, 1990, as the Bush administration stepped up war preparations
against Iraq, H&K, on behalf of the Kuwaiti government, presented
15-year-old "Nayirah" before the House Human Rights Caucus. Passed off as an
ordinary Kuwaiti with firsthand knowledge of atrocities committed by the
Iraqi army, she testified tearfully before Congress:
"I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital...[where] I saw the Iraqi soldiers
come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were
in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the
incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."
Supposedly fearing reprisals against her family, Nayirah did not reveal her
last name to the press or Congress. Nor did this apparently disinterested
witness mention that she was the daughter of Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah,
Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S. As Americans were being prepared for war,
her story- which turned out to be impossible to corroborate - became the
centerpiece of a finely tuned public relations campaign orchestrated by H&K
and coordinated with the White House on behalf of the government of Kuwait
and its front group, Citizens for a Free Kuwait.
In May 1991, CFK was folded into the Washington-based Kuwait-America
Foundation. CFK had sprung into action on August 2, the day Iraq invaded
Kuwait. By August 10, it had hired H&K, the preeminent U.S. public relations
firm. CFK reported to the Justice Department receipts of $17,861 from 78
individual U.S. and Canadian contributors and $11.8 million from the Kuwaiti
government. Of those "do- nations," H&K got nearly $10.8 million to wage one
of the largest, most effective public relations campaigns in history.
>From the streets to the newsrooms, according to author John MacArthur, that
money created a benign facade for Kuwait's image:
"The H&K team, headed by former U.S. Information Agency officer Lauri J.
Fitz-Pegado, organized a Kuwait Information Day on 20 college campuses on
September 12. On Sunday, September 23, churches nationwide observed a
national day of prayer for Kuwait. The next day, 13 state governors declared
a national Free Kuwait Day. H&K distributed tens of thousands of Free Kuwait
bumper stickers and T-shirts, as well as thousands of media kits extolling
the alleged virtues of Kuwaiti society and history. Fitz-Pegado's crack
press agents put together media events featuring Kuwaiti "resistance
fighters" and businessmen and arranged meetings with newspaper editorial
boards. H&K's Lew Allison, a former CBS and NBC News producer, created 24
video news releases from the Middle East, some of which purported to depict
life in Kuwait under the Iraqi boot. The Wirthlin Group was engaged by H&K
to study TV audience reaction to statements on the Gulf crisis by President
Bush and Kuwaiti officials. "
All this PR activity helped "educate" Americans about Kuwait-a totalitarian
country with a terrible human rights record and no rights for women.
Meanwhile, the incubator babies atrocity story inflamed public opinion
against Iraq and swung the U.S. Congress in favor of war in the
Gulf.[/quote]
[Hermit 3] As far as the "missing" are concerned, I am sure that Iraq was
involved in brutal murders. Then again, the Kuwaitis are not saints either.
Refer e.g. [quote]Amnesty International accused Kuwait in late February of
"serious human rights violations" during the three years since U.S.- and
GCC-led coalition troops freed Kuwait of Iraqi military occupation. "The
Kuwaiti government has failed to apply even the minimum international
standards to its law courts, and scores of suspected `collaborators,'
detained since 1991, continue to be sentenced to prison terms after grossly
unfair trials," the London-based human rights groups said.[/quote]
[url]http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407060.htm[/url]
Refer also [url=http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/MDE170011996]Five
years of impunity: human rights concerns since the withdrawal of Iraqi
forces[/url] [quote]During the Martial Law period, Kuwaiti Government forces
and armed civilians, often acting with the knowledge or acquiescence of
government officials, carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrests, torture
and extrajudicial executions of individuals suspected of collaboration with
Iraqi forces. Many of those detained disappeared and their whereabouts
remain unknown. The victims were mainly non-Kuwaitis, including Iraqis,
Palestinians, Jordanians and members of the bidun community (stateless
Arabs).[/quote].
[Hermit 2] Supposition: The US was not prepared to accept a simple retreat
from Kuwait by Iraq, resulting in the Gulf War.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] The rhetoric on both sides was more than a little heated. In
fact, Iraq "annexed" Kuwait (1990-08-08) only after the US had frozen Iraqui
assets (1990-08-02) invoked economic sanctions (1990-08-06) and moved troops
and equipment to Saudi Arabia (82nd Airborne and several fighter squadrons)
(1990-08-07). Even so, in the January meeting in Geneva between James Baker
(US Sec State) and Tariq Aziz (Iraq F.M), Iraq had already accepted
Resolution 660, but believed that the US would attack them whatever they
did, [quote]You know, at that time, until the resignation of Margaret
Thatcher, she was telling everybody that 'we will attack Iraq even if Iraq
withdraws from Kuwait,' you know that. She was asking for the dismantling of
Iraqi armament even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait, so what does that mean?
It means first, that they will not go to United Nations to seek permission
because mainly she and George Bush were talking about Article 51 of the UN
Charter, which entitles them to support an ally, Kuwait, to attack Iraq and
act against Iraq. That was the official position of both the United States
and Britain. Secondly she was saying we must dismantle Iraq from its
military power. How could that be done without destroying Iraq, without a
war? You cannot dismantle the military power of a nation unless there is
some sort of a war. As it happened in Japan, as it happened in Germany in
the Second World War, you just don't do that by diplomatic means.[/quote]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html[/url]
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] While I have scanned hundreds of photographs of before and after
imagery, and listened to hours of analysis determining effective and
ineffective techniques deployed in the Gulf War, almost none of that related
to city installations (bar security police installations) as the Iraqi
prefered Soviet style distribution of targets of value. However the effects
of massive bombing of civilian areas was clearly apparent in the aerial
imagery I have reviewed.
[Hermit 2] Far more destructive has been the declassification of US
documents.For example, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," dated January
22, 1991.
[quote]"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals
to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and
frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "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."
...
"Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack
of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease,
including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population
were careful to boil water."
...
"Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline,
rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already
experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at
least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully
degraded."[/quote]
[url=www.gulflink.osd.mil]Partially declassified in 1995[/url]
Then "Disease Information," also dated January 22, 1991.
Headed:
[quote]"Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad."
"Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation 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."
...
"acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and
salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly
children," [or by rotavirus, which will also affect] "particularly
children," It cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera
outbreaks.[/quote]
Then "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," dated February 21, 1990 [but the year is
clearly a typo and should be 1991]. It states:
[quote]Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks,
particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing….Infectious
disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert
Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the
reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification
and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease
outbreaks… most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending
order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory
illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly
children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children);
meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera
(possible, but less likely)[/quote]
Please note that the analysts suggested that Iraq might blame the US for the
deliberate destruction of water supplies, and suggested that this be
countered by claiming that there were “legitimate military targets” in the
vicinity, or that this destruction was accidental collateral damage. Note
that this was prior to US attacks. Sound familiar? This is easily countered
by the fact that in early February, in a joint United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable
water was reported as being:
[quote]less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational
water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is
four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on
the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these
diseases.[/quote]
Refer also [url]http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html[/url] and
other associated resources including the links and instructions to access US
documents provided at the foot of that page.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] It is not "patent" to me. South Africa had observers, and I read
their reports. But it is generally available. e.g.
[url]http://pnews.org/art/5art/warHORROR.shtml[/url]
[quote]Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait
through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George
Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi
soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague
Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no
quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers. On February 26,199 I, the
following dispatch was filed from the deck of the U.S.S. Ranger, under the
byline of Randall Richard of the Providence Journal:
Air strikes against Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait were being launched
so feverishly from this carrier today that pilots said they took whatever
bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. The crews, working to the
strains of the Lone Ranger theme, often passed up the projectile of choice .
. . because it took too long to load.
New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, "With the Iraqi leader facing
military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent
and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect
settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might
accept as tolerable." In short, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to
surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military
strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could
while the chance lasted. A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A
Soldier of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war
the general was only worried about "How long the world would stand by and
watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying,
'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground
troops to finish the job." The pretext for massive extermination of Iraqi
soldiers was the desire of the U.S. to destroy Iraqi equipment. But in
reality the plan was to prevent Iraqi soldiers from retreating at all.
Powell remarked even before the start of the war that Iraqi soldiers knew
that they had been sent to Kuwait to die. Rick Atkinson of the Washington
Post reasoned that "the noose has been tightened" around Iraqi forces so
effectively that "escape is impossible" (February 27, 1991). What all of
this amounts to is not a war but a massacre. [/quote]
[Hermit 2] In addition, I urge you to read and consider
[url]http://members.tripod.com/Balkania/resources/legal/us_war_crimes_gulf.html[/url]
titled
[quote]US War Crimes During the Gulf War By Francis Boyle. The following
paper was presented by FRANCIS A. BOYLE, Professor of International Law at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to a symposium held by the
Albany Law School. The symposium, held on February 27, 1992, was titled:
International War Crimes: The Search for Justice. This paper documents the
numerous occasions that international laws were broken and disregarded
during the Gulf War.[/quote]
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] But contrary to the Charter of the UN... and undoubtedly using
the Kurds as "terrorists." Is the supporter of terrorists then not a
terrorist? In which case, why is the US still looking for Bin Laden? Are
your standards different depending on who the victim is?
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] It has already been repeated in Bosnia, in Chechnya and in
Afghanistan where all three have been effectively handed back to Russian
control.
[Hermit 1] Fact: Every attempt to lift the sanctions on water purification
equipment or chemicals has been blocked by the US.
[Joe Dees 2] Mainly because of the chemical-weapons uses to which much of it
could (and most likely would) be put.
[Hermit 2] A slippery slope argument from you? The fact that this decision
results directly in the death of hundreds of thousands of children does not
bother you at all? You agree with the immortal words of Madeleine Albright
when she told CBS in 1996 that containing Iraq was worth the death of
500,000 Iraqi children?
[url]http://home.att.net/~drew.hamre/docAlb.htm[/url]
[Hermit 1] Fact: Every attempt to investigate any aspect of the above by the
UN has been blocked by the US using its Security Council vetoes.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] And "pecuniary interests" don't drive the US? I would suggest
that this is not common knowledge. Indeed, we have only to look at China's
"most favored" status to know that "pecuniary interests" do sometimes drive
US foreign policy. Indeed, I wonder if you can think of a time when they
didn't. To limit my homework, shall we limit the question to the last 25
years? But I was not referring to the lifting of sanctions but to the
investigation of International crimes by the US, and in particular, war
crimes.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] If this includes starvation, that is laid quite properly at the
feet of saddam Hussein, who starved his people to fortify his military.
[Hermit 2] It does include starvation, but it cannot be laid at Saddam
Hussein's door. People with diarrhea can't obtain nutrition from food, even
when it is provided to them. It can safely be laid at the hands of those
blocking attempts to lift the sanctions on water purification equipment and
chemicals (as advocated even by many US Senators and Congressmen) by those
arguing that they "might be used" to develop chemical weapons - despite the
complete lack of efficacy of such weapons and Iraq's total inability to
deliver such weapons in anything but token quantities.
[Hermit 2] Fact: The US knew and knows that these children are dying, and is
not taking action to prevent this.
[Joe Dees 2] Whaddaya call the agreement to allow those gigabucks of oil to
be sold for food and medical supplies; chopped liver?
[Hermit 2] Something like that. Understanding economics, I know that the
money isn't to make internal payments but to provide forex buy things from
other countries. And $130 dollars per person does not buy much of anything.
Particularly when what is desperately needed (clean water) is not available
simply because of US driven sanctions motivated by patently improbable
slippery slope arguments.
[Hermit 1] 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 4½ 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] This assumes the money is for internal use, it is not. Internal
money can be created at the cost of inflation (being done) and generating
debt (already done). It is required for external supplies. And US, World
Bank and Jane’s Defense Weekly figures on Middle East arms acquisition show
that any claim that significant diversion of funds is being made for arms
acquisition is fallacious.
[Hermit 1] 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?
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] No, I don't tell lies. I don’t need to. You are missing the
points explained above – and more. In mid 1990 Iraq imported more than 70%
of its basic needs (UN data). That was brought to a halt by UN Resolution
661 freezing Iraqi assets and imposing sanctions. UN Resolution 985 of 1995
allowed Iraq to resume exportation of a limited amount of oil through the
Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline in Turkey. The so called "oil for food swap"
allowed Iraq to export up to US$2 billion worth of oil every six months,
with one third of that sum being garnished to pay for war reparations. In
1998, this figure was increased to US$5.2 billion per six months. Despite
the increase in value of oil exports, Iraq has only the ability to pump US$4
billion worth of oil per month as it is unable to import vital components to
repair its war damaged oil wells. In addition, the "oil for food" swaps are
just that, oil for food to be supplied from outside the country. Iraqi
essential services remain in an immediate post war state as the importation
of parts and components to repair them are embargoed. Just to restore Iraq’s
electrical system would require US$14 billion. The country which used oil
revenue to purchase and import 70 per cent of its basic needs cannot now
even obtain aspirin, toilet paper or disinfectant.
[Hermit 2] In the US, with ready access to the needed supplies, the cost of
water per gallon delivered exceeds 1/2c per gallon in most jurisdictions.
The UN estimates survival (not crop growing) to require 15 lt or 4 gal a
day. That's 80 million gallons a day for 20 million people. Or 29 billion
gallons a year. Or 150 million dollars a year. In the US. In Iraq, they
cannot buy the chemicals - at any price. Which makes the discussion moot.
The World Bank estimates that Iraq will need to spend in excess of 70
billion dollars to bring its utilities back to 1980 levels.
[Hermit 2] I suggest you read [url]
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Iraq%20A%20Childs%20Cry%20for%20Help.html[/url]
for an eye-opener.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] But this was not true prior to 1991 when Iraq was the fastest
growing regional economy. And it is not caused by him according to every UN
program that has reported on the situation there. I wonder why you
[i]believe[/i] otherwise? Can you provide me with a source?
[Hermit 1] Fact: There are Americans who claim that their foreign policy
does not encourage terrorism.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] Iraq believes, possibly with reason, that this won't make a
difference. The example of Iran shows that they may be correct. The UN does
not believe that Iraq can deliver WMDs. The US posseses WMDs and the ability
to deliver them. Are you advocating that the US abandon its WMD programs?
[Hermit 1] Supposition: This requires a degree of stupidity, ignorance or
self-delusion far exceeding the ordinary.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] You are correct. Not everything the US does encourages terrorism.
Just a lot of it. Read up on what the Senate is saying about US involvement
in Bolivia these days for another example.
[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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] You and me both. But so long as we oppose democracy in the Middle
East (with all that that implies) it isn't going to happen. I left this in
because there has been very little evidence of the involvement of Libya or
Iran in terrorism (or even the PLO - and the Imad Mugniyeh weapons shipment
- on the face of it - seems more likely to have been destined for the
Lebanon rather than the Palestine). Only a lot of claims that they are doing
so. Do you ever wonder why? I do.
<snip - time troubles>
[Joe Dees 2] 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).
[Hermit 2] Knowing the Israeli doctrine and practice (very well), I would
suggest that any talk of "targeted killings" is unjustified by reality. I
had similar feelings about the US supported ANC... And Russia feels the same
way about Saudi Arabia etc, etc. I think we agree that all terrorism is
unacceptable.
[Hermit 1] Just as the US appears to have lost all support for her actions
in Iraq – even from her allies during the war.
[Joe Dees 2] 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.
[Hermit 2] I wish the opposite. I wish the US were able to cooperate with
the rest of the world rather than stomping on it and wasting the sympathy
they had after 911. And despite Mssrs Bush and Rumfeld's opinions and your
repetition of it, the world would have cooperated with the US had the US
cooperated with the world. In my, and many other International observer's
opinions, "going it alone," US style, only makes the probability of further
attacks more inevitable, not less so. But my interpretation comes from
reading as many foreign sources as I can find. It is far from unique, indeed
it appears to be dominating the conference in Munich as I write this.
[Hermit 1] 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.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] The "tempest" has only gone on hold while the world waits to see
what the next step is. Something the US has so far avoided announcing. You
know what my opinion was (International trial followed by execution or
incarceration). But I think that it is now too late for that and the US
climate will not allow it. Which means that the US will have to take the
responsibility for all of its actions alone. Including any actions which are
seen as partisan or ignoring International law or treaties. Which would make
her indeed as rogue as the opponents she claimed to be opposing.
[Hermit 1] 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 expeditiously as possible in order to minimize the probability
of insurrection or further collapse of relations.
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] I think events are running faster than you imagine. Refer e.g.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64536-2002Jan17.html[/url]
[quote]Crown Prince Abdullah has taken the lead of the faction within the
royal family arguing that the kingdom would be safer without the U.S.
military presence, Saudi sources said. In contrast to King Fahd, still
technically the monarch though he is completely incapacitated after strokes
and other illnesses, Abdullah has not had long years of a close working
partnership with the United States. He is described by Saudis and American
experts on the kingdom as an astute politician with a good sense of Saudi
public opinion, who has concluded the American presence is more trouble than
it is worth.
One big problem for Abdullah, said several past and present officials, is
anti-American sentiment in Saudi society. "For the first time since 1973, we
actually have a situation in which the United States is so unpopular among
the [Saudi] public that the royal family now thinks its security is best
served by publicly distancing itself from the United States," remarked Chas.
W. Freeman Jr. a former U.S. ambassador to Riyadh and frequent visitor to
the kingdom.[/quote]
<snip - we agree on terrorism, and terrorists, just not the why of it>
[Joe Dees 2] 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 2] I see little difference between the Christians and the Muslims. I
see the US Governments actions as having caused more harm - to herself and
to the inhabitants of Muslim nations - than terrorist actions have caused to
the US and her citizens. The refuge in a fundamentalist religion is simply a
matter that the people doing this don't have very many (any?) alternatives.
I continue to argue that you are not showing that the religion is
responsible for the horrors. Judeo-Christianity shares the religious roots
and for every "nasty" passage in the Qur'an, there is an equally nasty
passage available in Christian beliefs. Given equity and a strong middle
class in Islamic society, Islam will be as much danger to the world as
Christianity - and of as much relevance. Which is to say, with the exception
of the fundamentalist 20%, hardly any at all.
[Hermit 2] “Denial ain't a river in Egypt.” Perhaps it was amusing the first
time. I am trying very hard to see the entire story. And the more of it I
find out about, the more egregious the US role appears. I have no motivation
for supporting [I]any[/I] religion, or preferring anyone’s stories over
another. I am fully competent to balance claims and know that history is
better found in account books than books of accounts. I am reasonably
literate and know that everyone has an angle. My “fault” seems to me to be
purely that I do not see the US (or Christians) as having hands any cleaner
than Saddam Hussein – or bin Laden. And I’m not entirely isolated in that
opinion either. But I do think this can change, and that the answer is fewer
professional politicians and more public involvement in politics, fewer
“closed doors” and more information, less religion and more humanism, fewer
arms and more aid, and most importantly more education.
[Hermit 2] When not bickering over this subject, I think that you usually
agree with me on all these issues. But on this one topic, you seem to be as
deeply opposed to looking at the evidence, and there is a wealth of it, as
George Bush Snr* was determined to ignore similar facts.
Hermit
*"I will never apologize for the United States of America -- I don't care
what the facts are." - President George Bush, Sr.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." President George Bush, Jr.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT