An Open Letter to Condi

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So if I say I have no opinion on KipWellsFan, I am giving you permission to kick his ass?  Just because someone wants to stay out of a problem, that doesn't mean they would sit by when someone attacks them.  To me that means fix the problems yourselfs, not start a war.

 

And I always thought the reason for Iraq war one was because Iraq invaded Kuwait.  The rest of that stuff was secondary.

 

The Iraqis went to the US to make sure that there was going to be no form of reprisal on behalf of the US. The statemen was a virtual green light and made sure that there was no confusion, Glaspie stated: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphesize this instruction." In the meeting, the Iraqi delegation essentially laid out the fact that they were definitely thinking about the idea of going to invade Kuwait.

 

But after the war was started, GHWB blocked all possibilities for a negotiated solution. He rejected Iraq's offer to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for convening a Middle East peace conference. Yes, it was mainly a face saving measure on the behalf of Iraq -- but still rejected & war used as a diplomatic club by our country as well.

 

I think the reason behind going to war in 1990-1991 was to get rid of what GHWB called the "Vietnam Syndrome" so negotiations went out the window and interventionalism was on the menu. And who can forget the infamous Kissinger quote "Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs."

 

There is a good book about the PR campaign of Gulf War I by Sheldon Rampton and James Stauber called "Weapons of Mass Deception". They write a lot of books about deceptive advertising efforts, misuse of statistics in all sorts of realms. Its a very interesting and well researched read.

[YASNY]

I think I just entered the Twilight Zone.

[DBAHO]

OK, then how about Saddam's rap sheet of human rights violations, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, etc.?

Sticking up for Saddam, eh?  Boy, you really have gone off the deep end!

If that was the case, why didn't Bush just say that when they were invading Iraq? That's what the allied nations leaders were telling their people, that they had sent their troops to find these WMD. And why not get rid of Saddam earlier if the UN and America were looking for an excuse to do so?

[TheBigHurt35]

If that was the case, why didn't Bush just say that when they were invading Iraq? That's what the allied nations leaders were telling their people, that they had sent their troops to find these WMD. And why not get rid of Saddam earlier if the UN and America were looking for an excuse to do so?

 

Good question. The answer is that the UN never would've supported an invasion based on those reasons alone (and didn't with the WMD reasons either). Unfortunately, countries like France, Germany, and Russia didn't want an Iraq invasion, regardless of what Saddam was doing, because they wanted to continue to do business with him. When the Oil For Food Program began, Iraq's oil output was limited to 700,000 barrells/day. The three aforementioned governments lobbied hard to raise the limit to 2,000,000 per day. Hell, France and Russia didn't want any sanctions on Iraq's oil exports.

[Rex Kickass]

That's right.  The Oil For Food Program and the weapons inspections were incredibly effective.

 

Apparently they were.

 

How many WMD were there when we invaded? Oh yeah, that's right - none.

 

Child malnutrition rates were halved as a result of oil-for-food.

 

But that's cool dude, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Good question.  The answer is that the UN never would've supported an invasion based on those reasons alone (and didn't with the WMD reasons either).  Unfortunately, countries like France, Germany, and Russia didn't want an Iraq invasion, regardless of what Saddam was doing, because they wanted to continue to do business with him.  When the Oil For Food Program began, Iraq's oil output was limited to 700,000 barrells/day.  The three aforementioned governments lobbied hard to raise the limit to 2,000,000 per day.  Hell, France and Russia didn't want any sanctions on Iraq's oil exports.

 

And the US population likely wouldn't have supported a war based on this either. And lets not even mention that according to the Nuremberg Tribunals, pre-emptive strikes are a crime against peace (entailing crimes against humanity & war crimes in them -- as per the NT definition) & that the wonton devastation of Baghdad was a war crime ("shock and awe" anyone?)

 

I seem to remember a time when US business interests wanted Saddam taken off the list of terrorist nations and didn't care that he was murdering people, harboring Abu Nidal, etc. -- but the Reaganistas did the exact same thing in doing business with him. Its difficult to have a moral higher ground when our country has to say "Do as I say, not as I do".

[TheBigHurt35]

Apparently they were.

 

How many WMD were there when we invaded? Oh yeah, that's right - none.

 

Child malnutrition rates were halved as a result of oil-for-food.

 

But that's cool dude, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

 

Uh, yeah, Saddam was giving the Oil For Food money to the malnurished children. He has a real soft spot for the poor and oppressed. :rolly

 

In fact, that's why he kept kicking out the UN inspectors. He didn't want them to expose him as a "softie" and ruin his "dictator cred."

[KipWellsFan]

Uh, yeah, Saddam was giving the Oil For Food money to the malnurished children.  He has a real soft spot for the poor and oppressed.  :rolly

 

In fact, that's why he kept kicking out the UN inspectors.  He didn't want them to expose him as a "softie" and ruin his "dictator cred." 

 

Other than laughing off his points(don't know where he got his facts), do you have anything to rebut with?

[TheBigHurt35]

Other than laughing off his points(don't know where he got his facts), do you have anything to rebut with?

 

Well, since you asked...

 

Child malnutrition rates were halved as a result of oil-for-food.

 

"Halved" from which time period? The period where Saddam ruined Iraq's economy by waging a nine-year war against Iran? Or would that be the time period after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which resulted in UN sanctions against his country, thus causing even more poverty?

 

Saddam caused the malnutrition in the first place, skimmed an estimated $7-$21 billion in the Oil-For-Food scandal, would not cooperate with weapons inspectors (a blatant violation of UN resolutoins), and yet a regime change was not justified? Bulls***.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well, since you asked...

"Halved" from which time period?  The period where Saddam ruined Iraq's economy by waging a nine-year war against Iran?  Or would that be the time period after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which resulted in UN sanctions against his country, thus causing even more poverty?

 

Saddam caused the malnutrition in the first place, skimmed an estimated $7-$21 billion in the Oil-For-Food scandal, would not cooperate with weapons inspectors (a blatant violation of UN resolutoins), and yet a regime change was not justified?  Bulls***.

 

And which country intensified the Iran-Iraq war, got the death counts much higher, assisted in devastating that economy etc. and then just left like nothing had happened? Oh wait...saying it was the US would be anti-American

 

Sharon's treatment of Palestinians in Israel is systematic torture, violation of human rights, shooting of children, etc. How come one country gets invaded and the other gets billions in aid? I mean if we're gonna hold up the spreading of freedom and allowing for self-determination in countries, then we should apply it everywhere, not just arbitrarily when it suits politically. Then there is Uribe in Colombia whose relationship with the paramilitaries there shows numerous violations of human rights of innocent civilians -- but again, millions in aid.

 

If we're so committed to human rights/freedom/liberty as the Bush Doctrine says -- why the disparities here of invasions for some & billions in aid for others who systematically abuse human rights?

[KipWellsFan]

Well, since you asked...

"Halved" from which time period?  The period where Saddam ruined Iraq's economy by waging a nine-year war against Iran?  Or would that be the time period after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which resulted in UN sanctions against his country, thus causing even more poverty?

 

Saddam caused the malnutrition in the first place, skimmed an estimated $7-$21 billion in the Oil-For-Food scandal, would not cooperate with weapons inspectors (a blatant violation of UN resolutoins), and yet a regime change was not justified?  Bulls***.

 

 

See, now why didn't you write that in the first place.

 

And LCR I know it was a rhetorical questions but the Bush policy isn't worried about human rights/freedom/liberty when there are no residual benefits.

[EvilMonkey]

If that was the case, why didn't Bush just say that when they were invading Iraq? That's what the allied nations leaders were telling their people, that they had sent their troops to find these WMD.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

 

He did, in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, among other things. Notice all the 'Whereas'es which outline the reasons for our actions. Among them are:

 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait

 

and

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

 

He did, in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, among other things.  Notice all the 'Whereas'es which outline the reasons for our actions.  Among them are:

 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait

 

and 

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"

 

I'm not saying Saddam was a great guy but the US should not be the world policeman & not using the military unless there is a direct threat/attack on us. And if we are to getting to be in the role of international enforcer against countries that have violated numerous UN resolutions, when are the bombers headed out to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?

[EvilMonkey]

I'm not saying Saddam was a great guy but the US should not be the world policeman & not using the military unless there is a direct threat/attack on us.  And if we are to getting to be in the role of international enforcer against countries that have violated numerous UN resolutions, when are the bombers headed out to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?

 

Geeze. First you guys don't want us to go in anywhere, now you want us to go in everywhere. Make up your minds!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Geeze.  First you guys don't want us to go in anywhere, now you want us to go in everywhere.  Make up your minds!   

 

I'm simply stating that if the Bush Doctrine is to be held true and not be seen as hypocritical & that the idea of spreading liberty, self-determination (I would love to see Bush answer if he believes in self-determination for Gaza and the W. Bank) and enforcing UN resolutions, then we need to go after every nation where these problems have not been rectified.

[TheBigHurt35]

And which country intensified the Iran-Iraq war, got the death counts much higher, assisted in devastating that economy etc. and then just left like nothing had happened?

 

Yeah, Reagan put a gun to Saddam's head and made him invade Iran. Similarly, Bush was responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait. It's all the fault of the Bush/Reagan administrations. :rolly

 

You crack me up.

[Rex Kickass]

Uh, yeah, Saddam was giving the Oil For Food money to the malnurished children.  He has a real soft spot for the poor and oppressed.  :rolly

 

In fact, that's why he kept kicking out the UN inspectors.  He didn't want them to expose him as a "softie" and ruin his "dictator cred." 

 

During the course of OFFP, the average daily intake of calories by Iraqis increased 83%, from about 1200 a day to about 2200 a day. Malnutrition rates dropped from 11% to 4% during the course of the program. Since the end of OFFP, the malnutrition rate has begun to increase again, rated at just under 8% in November of last year. Of course, don't take my word for it... you can always just read the data yourself..

 

Oh, you're also incorrect about weapons inspectors being kicked out. Saddam Hussein never kicked out the UN inspectors. In 1998, UNSCOM left Iraq at the behest of a United States request to the Security Council.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yeah, Reagan put a gun to Saddam's head and made him invade Iran.  Similarly, Bush was responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait.  It's all the fault of the Bush/Reagan administrations. :rolly

 

You crack me up.

 

Saddam did not have the biological and chemical weapons that devastated the economy, the death counts, etc. Reagan's hand in the Iraq-Iran war cannot be ignored. But keep laughing it off. They're just brown people so they don't count, right?

[TheBigHurt35]

During the course of OFFP, the average daily intake of calories by Iraqis increased 83%, from about 1200 a day to about 2200 a day. Malnutrition rates dropped from 11% to 4% during the course of the program. Since the end of OFFP, the malnutrition rate has begun to increase again, rated at just under 8% in November of last year. Of course, don't take my word for it... you can always just read the data yourself..

 

If Saddam hadn't destroyed his own economy by invading two countries, the Oil-For-Food program wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. And now we know that most of the money went into Saddam's own pocket anyway.

 

Oh, you're also incorrect about weapons inspectors being kicked out. Saddam Hussein never kicked out the UN inspectors. In 1998, UNSCOM left Iraq at the behest of a United States request to the Security Council.

 

That's right. We voluntarily pulled them out because Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs. Big difference. :rolly

 

Saddam did not have the biological and chemical weapons that devastated the economy

 

Oh, yes he did. We gave him the technology. He even used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

 

But keep laughing it off.  They're just brown people so they don't count, right?

 

Oh, you're using the race card now? You've just elevated yourself to the intellectual level of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If Saddam hadn't destroyed his own economy by invading two countries, the Oil-For-Food program wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.  And now we know that most of the money went into Saddam's own pocket anyway.

That's right.  We voluntarily pulled them out because Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs.  Big difference. :rolly

Oh, yes he did.  We gave him the technology.  He even used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

Oh, you're using the race card now?  You've just elevated yourself to the intellectual level of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

 

He didn't have them until the US sold them to him -- exactly my point.

[Rex Kickass]

If Saddam hadn't destroyed his own economy by invading two countries, the Oil-For-Food program wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.  And now we know that most of the money went into Saddam's own pocket anyway.

 

Actually, you're completely wrong there. Although there was graft and corruption from the Oil For Food program, the total amount of corrupted money related to OFFP was less than 10% of the money that came from OFFP. That's one third of the money that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia received in reparations from OFFP. Contrast that with the 40 cents on every dollar spent to rebuild Iraq being lost to graft today.

 

Further, if you take a look at the Iran/Iraq war, you'd see that Saddam Hussein didn't start that war to expand his sphere of influence but rather as a preemptive strike against what it viewed as an aggressive Iran that was a perceived threat to its security. Sound familiar? I remember a war being fought on a perceived threat in 2003.... wonder who started that? Oh yeah, us.

 

That's right.  We voluntarily pulled them out because Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs.  Big difference. :rolly

Yes that is a big difference. When we sought to pull out UNSCOM in 1998, we walked away from the table - not Iraq. And I'm willing to wager we did it because it was a wild goose chase to find weapons that were mostly gone. UNSCOM estimated Iraq to be between 90 and 95 percent dismantled.

 

 

 

Oh, yes he did.  We gave him the technology.  He even used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

Oh, you're using the race card now?  You've just elevated yourself to the intellectual level of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

 

A lot of the same people were working in the White House when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. They chose not to respond then. Only when a major source of oil was threatened did the Bush white house choose to intervene. I'd say the race card was in play long before anyone here brought it up.

[TheBigHurt35]

Actually, you're completely wrong there. Although there was graft and corruption from the Oil For Food program, the total amount of corrupted money related to OFFP was less than 10% of the money that came from OFFP.

 

So, Saddam funneling 10% of the OFFP money ($7-$21 BILLION) into his own pocket is acceptable?

 

The bottom line is that the OFFP was not a viable long-term solution (except maybe for France and Russia, who only cared about the cheap Iraqi oil they were getting). Getting rid of Saddam was.

 

Further, if you take a look at the Iran/Iraq war, you'd see that Saddam Hussein didn't start that war to expand his sphere of influence but rather as a preemptive strike against what it viewed as an aggressive Iran that was a perceived threat to its security. Sound familiar? I remember a war being fought on a perceived threat in 2003.... wonder who started that? Oh yeah, us.

 

The difference, of course, being that our children are still consuming a hell of a lot more than 1,200 calories per day after that pre-emptive strike.

 

Yes that is a big difference. When we sought to pull out UNSCOM in 1998, we walked away from the table - not Iraq. And I'm willing to wager we did it because it was a wild goose chase to find weapons that were mostly gone. UNSCOM estimated Iraq to be between 90 and 95 percent dismantled.

 

But we'll never know because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors in certain sites. If there were no weapons, what did he have to hide? Perhaps the money that he was stealing from the OFFP?

 

In the end, it doesn't really matter what he was trying to hide, as he violated the terms of the agreement that he signed with the UN again and again and again.

 

A lot of the same people were working in the White House when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. They chose not to respond then. Only when a major source of oil was threatened did the Bush white house choose to intervene. I'd say the race card was in play long before anyone here brought it up.

 

That's right. Our government is run by a bunch of racists, as evidenced by our efforts to ward off Communist oppression in Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba.

Edited March 11, 2005 by TheBigHurt35