The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

"Nationalizing the oil industry means he kicked out western companies and stole the wealth for himself" Are you saying the oil didn't belong to Iraq, but to western oil companies? And you still insist the war had nothing to do with oil or profit?

Well, yes Virginia, it was the Iraqi's oil. And, they parleyed their untapped wealth by signing deals with western companies to come in and invest in building the oil industry infrastructure. Then, overnight, Saddam decided to change the deal to "I get it all", and thanks so much for helping. Hugo Chavez, another hero of the socialist elite, also stripped legitimate standing contracts to nationalize the oil and put it at his personal disposal. Do I insist the war had nothing to do with oil? No. The war involved oil, because it generates wealth, and wealth can be translated into power, and power is an intoxicant to a tyrant. Is the US in Iraq to rob their oil? No. BTW, are you a Chomskyite?

"Literacy at the end of a gun, how magnanimous. And, UNESCO even gave him an award! UNESCO gave him an award for eradicating illiteracy by force. Maybe that would work for health care?" It said punishable by 3 years jail. It said that because of it, many Iraqis learned to read and write. It says nowhere that people were threatened, shot, or actually sent to jail. It also doesn't say why UNESCO gave the award. Do you often see things that aren't there?

Or, maybe its the truth? See Page 9, KRUPSKAYA Prize -- 1979 -- Supreme Council of the National Campaign for Compulsory Literacy of Iraq I suggest you remove your head from... the sand. How would you like to spend 3 years in an Iraqi jail? You do know that there was very little chance of emerging from them right?

"Um, did you read the HRW report?" Did you? You don't seem to agree with it. Also, in none of the links you provided there is actual evidence shown that it really was Saddam Hussein who was responsible. All it says is that many of the deaths are from the time that he was in power, and that a few of the mass graves are big enough to suspect that authorities were involved. That's all. But as we have seen these last years, shooting others and dumping them in a hole is quite popular over there. And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was never convicted for all of this. There wasn't any proof, so they had to use a single attack on a village, in 1982, where hundreds (not thousands) were killed.

OMG! You feel free to Bush bash everything, because he's the President and you know crap rolls uphill. But, in this case, poor maligned Saddam hadn't a clue about the hundreds of thousands of detained and executed civilians. Hundreds? Do you know how many mass graves sites they uncovered? 270 so far. (link) What you've shown me is that you are entirely clueless of the Iraqi security apparatus and how short the chain was to the Tikriti mob and Saddam's inner circle. Please, please, buy a clue!

"If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

"When the US gave him the ultimatum to..." The US doesn't have the right to give ultimatums. But seriously, do you really think a blackmail scheme like this was going to work? Wasn't he a dictator that didn't care for his people? Trying to force him by hurting those people must seem like a bad plan, if you believe all that.

Your word choice is telling. Why doesn't the US have the right to give another country an ultimatum? You also don't seem to have a clue about how nations go to war, or why. You don't see it as an attempt by the US before unleashing its might to give Saddam one last out before subjecting his nation to the horrors of war. No, you see it as blackmail.

"In other words, the death rate in Iraq today is less than half of the rate suffered under Saddam" Doesn't look like a reliable site, where you got this from. Lots of advertising and one-sided opinions, but no sources. A banner that counts the days since Obama was in Iraq? How insinuating can you be, without being ridiculous?

Ah, you take the tactic of denouncing the site, rather than look at the veracity of the data contained. Maybe if I linked to Pravda you would believe it? Here is an interview with James Dunnigan on Mother Jones (link). Is that left wing enough for you? I mean if Mother Jones gives him an interview, does he have credibility now?

But let's take a look at that claim. According to your numbers, before the war 16000 lives a year were lost. So, that should be 8000 a year since the invasion, or some 40000 between 2003 and 2008. That's odd, because estimates for that period range from 150000 to 1000000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

The 16,000 per year was just from Saddam's murders. You need to include all non-state murders to get an apples to apples comparison. Your low number of 150,000 over 6 years would be 25,000 per year, which is probably too small. The high number is ludicrously exaggerated. There is probably some level of error in the assumption that the post war Iraqi death rate (due to violence other than war), is 45/100000. But, from your same link, "The United Nations reported that 34,452 violent deaths occurred in 2006, based on data from morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq." So, let's assume that it was higher from 2003 to 2005 and has dropped to around the UN 2006 figure. Many of the individuals killed were killed by insurgents. Many were killed in gun battles with coalition forces. Many were murdered in rampant lawlessness. The population of Iraq is 27,499,638, and even discounting this is a war zone the violent death rate is 34,452 / 27,499,638 = 0.00125, or 125 violent deaths per 100,000 people. It is high when comparing to the worst places in the world whose murder rates are around 80 to 90 per 100,000 (including Washington DC -- who also had a gun ban until recently). Consider Sudan whose death rate in 2007 is estimated to be 14.39 deaths/1,000 people.

"The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995" I didn't know that, but I did know that Clinton wasn't the worst president of the USA, and maybe the best in the past decades. Anyway, back then they probably didn't realize all the consequences, or maybe they thought the oil trading would be mostly with the USA.

Nope, you didn't know that. And, according to you, that person and all his advisers who "wasn't the worst president of the USA" was too stupid to understand the oil economy. Or, maybe your petrodollars argument is bunk.

"...heavily involved in getting kick backs on corrupt oil sales. Then, there was also the outright smuggling of oil from Iraq." What are corrupt oils sales? Transactions that don't involve dollars? And the smuggling? Did they use invisible tankers for that? Either way, I don't see what this has to do with the Food for Oil program.

Oh, I don't know. Corruption? Kick backs? Bribes? Influence peddling? Buying votes on the security council? How would you feel if some large company was handing your local politician tons of money for future deals?

Ah well, this discussion is getting rather pointless. Isn't your time better spent looking for reasons to declare war on Iran?

If you say so. :) Or, maybe the truth is dashing your illusions. Haven't you read the extreme fringe liberal literati? The next war will be launched once we figure out how to fake another 9/11 and pin it on Iran.