Pissed Iraqi foreign minister kicks UN squarely in the nads

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by quzah

Furthermore, this spans nearly thirty years. I'd imagine that in 2002 since we weren't friends with Iraq, we weren't selling them anything. How about a chart pre-"War with Iraq" for a bit more accuracy?

Well... the chart seems to include the years in which you're interested. It goes back to '73. Saddam Hussein assumed the presidency of Iraq in '79.

Do you think that a chart that only included the years through 1991 would look significantly different? After all, Iraq was firmly a client state of the Soviet Union for most of that time.

Why, I bet Chile was glad we overthrew their Democratic govermnent in '73 huh?

If you'd like, we can start a separate thread in which I will explain to you how Salvador Allende got exactly what he deserved. I'd be glad to help. I can see that history isn't your strongest subject.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Well... the chart seems to include the years in which you're interested. It goes back to '73. Saddam Hussein assumed the presidency of Iraq in '79.

Do you think that a chart that only included the years through 1991 would look significantly different? After all, Iraq was firmly a client state of the Soviet Union for most of that time.

Oh... we can talk about Pinochet in a separate thread sometime, if you'd like.

*smacks forehead*

Ok, let's do a bit of basic math real quick:

Three countries sell weapons to another.
Country A sells 50% volume.
Country B sells 40% volume.
Country C sells 10% volume.

Let's assume country D, the buyer, buys 100 weapons per year.

Thus, a ten year graph has something like:
A: *****
B: ****
C: *

* = 100 units of weapons.

Now, we extend that out another ten years, without C selling anything. The others still sell the same number of items, to simplify the graph:

A: **********
B: ********
C: *

Notice anything different? The graph is based on precentage. Thus, if you stop adding volume to one of the countries some point along your time table, while the others continually add to theirs, you'll find a huge altering in the end result. To further extend this another ten years, and you'll now find that countries A and B have three times the volume of a ten year span. Thus, percentage wise, country C really only has less than three percent.

A: ***************
B: ************
C: *

So in short, yes, I expect a much different graph. Because simply looking at the first graph you say "Ah, well there's not that huge a difference."

Graphs and charts can always be tweaked to show whatever you want. You want your processor to look way faster than someone else? Show the graph with a ton of increment points. Thus, the speed difference of 50mhz on a graph where the scale is incremented 1 at a time, shows the processor with the 50mhz lead fifty points ahead! HOLY CRAP!. You want to show that 50mhz is nothing at all? Put it on a graph with 500 point increments. "Shit, that processor is barely a tenth of the way to the next point ahead."

Illustration:

ProcessorA: |**************************************************
ProcessorB: |*

* = 1Mhz increments.

The graph starts at N mhz, where N is the base speed of the other processor.

ProcessorA: |***************
ProcessorB: |**********

* = 10mhz

Same processors. Here we start 100mhz back on the scale. We now see that processor B isn't that far behind processor A after all...

It's all in the presentation. (Yeah, Illustration 2 is off from my worded example, but I didn't feel like making five pages of asterix to prove a point.)

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
If you'd like, we can start a separate thread in which I will explain to you how Salvador Allende got exactly what he deserved. I'd be glad to help. I can see that history isn't your strongest subject.

Since when did this become "getting what he deserved"? This is about America deciding that they don't like a goverment, so they overthrow it, and that it's an absurd notion. A notion we would not tollerate. What part of that aren't you understanding? History has nothing to do with it. If the guy was a dick, it has nothing to do with it. It has to do with America deciding they're the police of the world and that it's OK for them to dish out punnishment on whoever they feel like. Yet at the same time, there is no way in hell they'd take that shit from anyone else.

It's about being two faced. Do you understand that? Or do I need to go over it yet again?

Quzah.

[Undertoad]

First off, Dubya did not enter into Iraq with the intention of "helping" the people of Iraq. It was under this bullshit pretense of saving the world from terrorists. Squashing the "axis of evil", all that.

I thought it was all about the bullshit pretense of WMD. Can't you anti-war people keep your bullshit pretenses straight?

(Answer: no, because you keep ignoring the real reason for the war.

The real reason for the war is Middle East transformation.)

[Griff]

Sorry, you guys just keep tossing birds out so fast sometimes we squeeze the wrong trigger. Importantly, Bush will be re-elected on the previous bullshit pretense rather than this bullshit pretense.

[Beestie]

UT wrote:

The real reason for the war is Middle East transformation

To add to that, I always thought the real reason for the war was to neutralize Iraq's threat to its neighbors thereby allowing us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia thereby diffusing the tension between Al Queada and the US and between Al Queda and Saudi Arabia.

That and to kick Saddam's ass for the sake of kicking his ass.

Its pretty much the Iran thing all over again. Iran (the Shah) wanted nukes from the US. The US said no. The Shah turned to the USSR. The US said - "your toast" and financed his overthrow. In Iraq, we're hanging around to make sure the replacement Government is more to our liking.

Just one ioiot's opinion, tho.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I thought it was all about the bullshit pretense of WMD. Can't you anti-war people keep your bullshit pretenses straight?

(Answer: no, because you keep ignoring the real reason for the war.

The real reason for the war is Middle East transformation.)

Um, the anti-war people aren't the ones making up excuses for the war. All of the various pretenses came right out of the White House.

It's Middle East transformation now?

[Undertoad]

I believe it was always about ME transformation. This was only mentioned in one speech in the runup to the war, but has been touched upon in almost every speech in the last two months.

I believe it is to create a new image of the US to the Arab world, and I believe that the concept of the reformation of Iraq through its rebuilding might be the most liberal foreign policy move EVER.

That's "Lib-ruul" the way Bush Sr. used to use the word as an insult, BTW. As in the sentence "George W. Bush is very Lib-ruul". It is a very Lib-ruul foreign policy to use Billions upon Billions of Free Money to convince a society through Gifts that the US is a Good Giving Country and your Friend. I think getting rid of Saddam was the first Gift. I think the Lib-ruuls invented the idea. And now the Rs have stolen it easily because the Ds are frantically running away from it.

And I think it hasn't worked in the past because those countries have seen us, correctly, as an "indian giver" (to use a politically incorrect phrase). And I think it will work this time because we are giving so damn much that we will build the entire country and make it incredibly prosperous.

[Undertoad]

But that doesn't mean the administration is beyond criticism. On cue, here is a real criticism and a real problem in the administration.

The Bush revolution is supposedly that of an "MBA President" (cue tw alarm) -- where the guy on the top delegates to his people, makes the big decisions based on their work, etc. This suits Bush well with his buddy-buddy frat-boy cheerleader attitude. (And it drives the opposition nuts because he isn't a details-oriented policy wonk - like they are.) But the ultimate failure would be if the administration tripped for MBAesque reasons, such as lack of focus and political infighting.

[Griff]

I prefer retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowskis' insider view.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by quzah
How about a chart pre-"War with Iraq" for a bit more accuracy?

Ask, and ye shall receive.

Originally posted by quzah
Thus, if you stop adding volume to one of the countries some point along your time table, while the others continually add to theirs, you'll find a huge altering in the end result. To further extend this another ten years, and you'll now find that countries A and B have three times the volume of a ten year span. Thus, percentage wise, country C really only has less than three percent.

So you're complaint is... mmmm... that the United States (country 'C' in your "example", I assume) didn't sell as many weapons to Iraq as the Soviets and the Chinese did?

Originally posted by quzah
So in short, yes, I expect a much different graph.

You're wrong.

If we exclude the data from the period following the Gulf War, the US percentage of total arms sales to Iraq actually falls slightly, to less than one-half of one percent.

This is because, relative to all the other nations in the world, the US really didn't sell all that many weapons to Iraq.

If you'd like, we can start a separate thread in which I will explain percentages and ratios to you. I'd be glad to help. I can see that math isn't your strongest subject, either.

[Torrere]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Um, the anti-war people aren't the ones making up excuses for the war. All of the various pretenses came right out of the White House.

It's Middle East transformation now?

Not all of the various pretenses came from the White House. A lot of people from both the pro-war side and the anti-war side have generated lists upon lists oif

I see the invasion of Iraq as such an awful political move that I am compelled to try to come up with reasons for us to invade Iraq that actually make sense and justify all of the money we are pouring into this endeavour and bad karma (distrust from other nations, breeding terrorists, reducing stability, debt, distraction of Al-Qaeda & Afghanistan) that we are getting out of it. I think that it will be difficult to maintain our hold on Iraq, although not as difficult as Afghanistan.

My excuses are:
* The Bush Administration wanted to use Iraqi oil to pressure the OPEC to A) set oil prices as Bush and friends (not necessarily we) want them and B) keep the oil traded on the dollar.
* We didn't want to leave the Hussein regime around long enough for Uday or Qusay to inherit - because that would have been Bad™.

[Torrere]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

If we exclude the data from the period following the Gulf War, the US percentage of total arms sales to Iraq actually falls slightly, to less than one-half of one percent.

If you'd like, we can start a separate thread in which I will explain percentages and ratios to you. I'd be glad to help. I can see that math isn't your strongest subject, either.

/me sputters

Are you suggesting that we kept selling weapons to Iraq AFTER we kicked their asses and declared them an enemy in the Gulf War? And that, in proportion to the other nations of the world, our contributions actually rose!?

If not, then please explain percentages and ratios to me too. I'd be glad to hear how you can account for this otherwise.

[Edit: Oh. I think that UT's graph is rounded, because the same guy who posted the original graph faced the same criticisms and remade it for a 1973-1990 graph; which still gave the US 1%. Now could we see a 1983-1990 graph (or 1979-1990) to signify the years that the US assisted Saddam-ruled Iraq in the slaughter of the armies of Iran?

Oh, and screw your new math, Hubris -- I'm pretty sure that there is no screwy quantum effect on ratios. I'd still like to hear your 'explanation', though!]

[quzah]

I don't need an entire thread to prove a point, unless you're unable to understand the basic mathmatics about to be described to you:

Say that 100 weapons were sold per year for 27 years. 57% of those were sold by the USSR. This means that the USSR sold 1539 weapons. Still with me? The USA however, only sold 1% of them. That is to say, 27 weapons.

Divide 1539 by 27, and you get 57, naturally. Multiply this by 17, and you get the number of weapons that the USSR sold over 17 years: 969.

The US sold 27 weapons over a span of 17 years, and the USSR sold 969. Total sold weapons is 1700. Divide 969 by 1700, what do you get? 57%. Divide 27 by 1700 and what do you get? 1.58%.

Now how again am I wrong here? Please, point it out to me. The percentage cannot drop over a lesser time frame if the volume sold by the USA is fixed. It can only increase.

I have already illustrated this and the manipulation of graphs in the above post. Please refer to it. If you sell five cars, and I sell five, we've both sold 50% of total share. If next year, you sell zero, and I sell 5 more, you now are down to 33% even though your volume has not changed.

Welcome to graph manipulation 101. This is why it's better for the US to present the graph through the 2000 time table versus the 1990 time table. If they stop selling weapons in 1900, then their percentage of the total number sold will drop, while the actual sold number remains the same.

But what do I know right? I mean, I've only proven the point multiple times now.

Quzah.

[Undertoad]

Originally posted by quzah
Now how again am I wrong here? Please, point it out to me.

No prob. It's in your first post in the thread, where you say

Originally posted by quzah
The US supported Iraq. They basicly handed Saddam the gun and said, "Here, shoot thousands of your people."

H T H