Punishing the French

[ScottSolomon]

Your weekly average includes the Kurds in Halabja and the Shia that rose up after Gulf War 1, and (more than the first 2 numbers combined) the deaths of Iraqis due to sanctions.

We were friends with Saddam in 1988 - When Halabja happened. Rumsfeld made deals with Saddam Hussein shortly thereafter. We ignored the Shia's suffering when Iraq quelled their rebellion. We moved the U.N. to impose the sanctions upon Iraq and we ignored international cries for a repeal of sanctions.

You are right that the news never covered any of this. The Left - wing and independent press covered the hell out of it, but the corporate media were more interested in covering Willie Brown, Dukakis, Bill Clinton's penis, etc.

The Three Weeks War appears to have cost the lives of a whopping 2,356 Iraqi civilians by the highest of estimates, as contrasted with the expected 3,606 who would have perished if we had left Saddam's regime alone.

Equivocation of Terms fallacy. The civilian deaths you cited are just the bombing deaths - deaths from disease, exposure to depleted uranium, lack of water, etc are not included in this number. You seem to think that Iraq had a killing quota of 1202 people a week. This is not true - and the killing that was done was done by more than just Saddam Hussein and a few of his minions. More than that, the 1.5 million number is a misuse of a real figure for the purposes of manipulation - of people like you.

don't recall seeing ANY of those 1,500,000 on TV. They were inconvenient -- inconvenient to Saddam,

Well, since they would have highlighted the 750,000 children theat died because of our sanctions, yeah - it was damaging to America's interests. The corporate media ignored this because it made us look like cruel bastards - and it would have made Americans ask who was being hurt by the sanctions.

The corporate media did, however, cover a lot of the horror stories about Iraq and they never failed to portray Saddam Hussein in the proper light.

inconvenient to French oil companies

Oh Please. Iraq exported 40% of it's oil to the U.S.. It only exported about 8% of it's oil to France. You are freakin stupid - don't you ever question any of the crap you see on O'Reilly or Savage? France's debt load with Iraq was 1.5 billion. Of which they could not collect anything since Iraq had to pay Kuwait and the U.N. before it started paying other nations like Russia, Germany, and France.

They were convenient to US war plans, so they were inconvient to a generally left-oriented press

Do you even read what you type?!?!?!?! This same media that never reported the deaths in Iraq - decided to start reporting about the deaths in Halabja and the atrocities when the GOVERNMENT decided that it wanted to pursue a war. The media did not start claiming the 1.5 million iraqi deaths number until Rummy said something about it.

Were you watching T.V. during the war?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! How in the FUCK can you honestly say that that media is generally left oriented? They never really questioned anything the administraiton said. They used passive voice in every headline to keep up the appearances of patriotism. They contributed to the vilification of dissent. They stacked generals and politicicans on the right - against COMICS??!?! And you really think there is a "librul" media?

I think, when you live in a hole, someone can light a match and you think it is the sun. You don't know how little the matchlight was unless you get out of the hole and see the sun for yourself. If you already think the media must be liberal - because you have been told that it is SOOOOOOO many times, I do not think you could see anything but a liberal media.

If I were you I would compare and contrast your American news sources with the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, etc. Then compare the "librul media" to newsmax, tech central station, or GOPUSA. You will see something striking. You will see that the corporate media presents the right-wing perspective faaaar more often than it presents the left wing perspective.

that you think such things were permissible and entirely safe from "looting" or winding up in the hands of terrorists while the country was under Saddam.

Well, it was safe and monitored by the U.N. and the IAEA for years. I don't recall any terrorists using Iraqi nuclear waste in a bomb, do you? Since the IAEA know the isotopic ratios of the waste in Iraq, it would be fairly easy to determine whether a dirty bomb got it's materials from Iraq. Why would Saddam Hussein give terrorists something that would trace right back to him?

If they weren't safe, the UN would have found them, right?

They did, you dick. NUCLEAR WASTE is not fissile. It could not be made into a nuclear bomb.

This was the waste from the Osirak reactor. You see, this stuff stays radioactive for about 10,000 years, so the Iraqis had to store it somewhere. The IAEA knew about it. The U.N. knew about it.

The old story is that they don't exist and aren't cause for going to war

You are about as dumb as a bag of hammers. YOU CANNOT MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB WITH NUCLEAR WASTE!!!!!!!

[xoxoxoBruce]

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure

AND make personal attacks on people that don't agree with them.

[Undertoad]

Scott, if you can't get through writing your messages without including all kinds of name-calling and punctuation farts, perhaps the Cellar is not the message board for you.

[Uryoces]

ScottSolomon: Now that this has in fact happened, what would you do to rebuild Iraq, to make the best of this situation? What do we need to do to reverse any damage done? I'm looking for practical, pragmatic answers to fix this.

One of the points you brought up is the article was about Blair stating the war was all about oil. The article states that an environmentalist advisor made the comment, and that opposition members are saying the war was about oil. Regardless of whether the premise is true or not, I think the sources quoted are a bit suspect. The article states Blair wants the oil held in a UN trust for the Iraqi people, and Powell is stated as saying he'd like to give the money to the Iraqis.

I don't trust Bush, or all the reasons that we invaded Iraq for. I feel I'm little in the dark as to everything that happened and the reasons for it. I'm watching this bonus round action with trepidation.

[ScottSolomon]

AND make personal attacks on people that don't agree with them

I was not making personal attacks simply because he do not agree with me. I was making personal attacks at him because he was reiterating a misused statistic to make a specious argument. What is worse is that he did not even know that the statistic was misused.

I was not trying to be mean to UnderToad. I was just trying to get through. I apologize if I offended you, UT.

ScottSolomon: Now that this has in fact happened, what would you do to rebuild Iraq

What, since the past is past, we should not worry about it? Look onward, 'cause there is nothing to see here in the present or the past. Well, those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it.

What I would do, is bring in the world. I would bring in U.N. peacekeeping troops and I would bring together a ministry of Iraqi leaders from within the country - not a bunch of outsiders. I would do my best to reestablish some sense of order - but acting too tough would backfire, so I have to be open aout everything. I would create shell corporations made up of Iraqi oil engineers and temporary managers - and I would establish a training system to bring up Iraqi management. I would replicate this throughout Iraq's nationalized industries. I would hire work crews in the thousands to do nothing but clean up and repair the damage. I would make sure the people had electricity, water, and security.

But I would make the whole thing an international effort. I would put together a citizen oversight commitee to look out for the interests of the Iraqis.

I will probably fail and I may have many major setbacks. I may have to suppress a revolution or sniff out a clandestine coup. I may be finally expelled as Iraq falls into chaos.

Blair wants the oil held in a UN trust for the Iraqi people

Don't think of oil in such a pedestrian fashion. I don't know if this is just intellectual dishonesty or if this is what you actually think, but oil is much more than a simple commodity. This war had much more to do with oil as a weapon than oil as a product.

Oil drives western industry. It's cost is felt everywhere. Every product you buy has a small charge tacked on for the oil needed in the plastic or the fuel needed for transport, or the lubrication on the truck's axle. This is so much so - that every 1 dollar shift downward in the price of a barrel of oil has as much impact on the economy as a 100 billion dollar tax cut. Oil is essential for defense. Every military in the world must have an enormous supply of oil in order to wage war. Which is where our good Fuhrer comes in.

The United States is an empire. Like it or not, for the past 50 years we have military bases girding the world in a ring of steel. We force our version of capitalism onto developing nations in order for them to get support. In the process we secure valuable natural wealth at rock bottom prices. We have the largest defense budget in the world. We defy or uphold treaties without consequence. We act with impunity and we have made it known to the world that they can be cast aside when they are no longer politically expedient.

We have got a great thing going, now. However, the future is not certain. The European Union is emerging as an economic powerhouse. Iraq shifted it's currency for oil transactions to Euros, and it would be disasterous if OPEC also made the shift. It would create a worldwide shift away from the dollar as the international currency of choice. China is also a rising power. It's oil cunsumption and desire for growth are becoming voracious. In order to grow beyond it's current level, it must make drastic increases in its level of energy procurement. This is where we come in.

If we have our hand on the spigot of Iraq, and we keep a tight leash on the ruling class of Saudi Arabia - who need our support to maintain their fragile hold on their country - we have a very effective negotiations tool to keep our rich people at the poker table with their rich people. This is why wars are fought.

You can make arguments that this is a good situation and you can make arguments that this is bad. But make no mistake, this war was most certainly fought for oil.

[Uryoces]

You sound a bit angry, and your world view has no joy in it at all. There is a saying, and I'm not sure where I heard it, but I believe it as I get older: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. I don't see any grand plan behind the US's current status in the world. I am sure Bush has some nebulous ideas, but not beyond that. He'll not be around after the next election.

Scott, I never said that the war was not fought about oil. I don't think it was the sole reason. If by pedestrian you mean that my view on oil is simple, then yes. It's an extremely simple commodity in and of itself. A silly thing to fight over. My view on oil is that it is a very maleable substance. It can finance or destroy, hurt or heal. It is used most often as a club. We have had it used on us in the past, and if your theory is true, we will use it on Saudi Arabia and France. I suspect France would have developed the fields in Iraq and used it as just such a weapon.


Swiss United Nations troops, as I don't know If I fully trust anyone at this point. They are neutral, or as neutral as you can afford.

[ScottSolomon]

Bush is not stupid. He is playing the role of a PR figurehead to a T. I think that the Bush presidency is actually a commitee head by Cheney. The people that surrend the administration, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Fleischer, etc. are all very intelligent and they all have a very flexible idea of morality. Many of them made their plans known over the years, and it seems like thie plans have been put into action - the catalyst for it all was 9-11.

I do not think that the administration would mind breaking a few eggs to make their omlette.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity

I do not think a group of well educated people with years of experience could be that stupid.

He'll not be around after the next election.

I will bet you - even if Bush loses - he will not lose. Karl Rove is a master of spin and the media has stopped even attempting to be critical of this Bush. The media have accepted their role as Democrat bashers, so I really doubt any of the Dems will be able to depose his highness.