The stock options are in a "charitable trust." The money he receives every year is similar to a pension and is already set in stone. Bah. I hate it when people who claim to hate lying and spinning lie and spin themselves.
It would be, but you continue to be in the discussion. That's fine too, but it opens you up for criticism.
Now I'm not saying you like Dubya. I'm saying you're not willing to criticize him here. There's a difference. You have in the past said you wouldn't because there are enough people here to do it for you.
If these contracts are ultimately paid for by Iraqi oil, then is it a problem for you?
I'm saying you're not willing to criticize him here. There's a difference. You have in the past said you wouldn't because there are enough people here to do it for you.
So by not joining in the game of politick soggy biscuit I am open for criticism for not being a part of the group?
"One of us, we accept you! Gooble-gobble gooble-gobble one of us!"
You use a rubric of establishing credibility by bashing specific politicians, which is silly, pointless and does nothing to display any actual knowledge (which should be the rubric by which credibility is established). So to put it curtly, **** your silly game I choose not to play it.
I have in the past said there is no point, not that I "wouldn't". And again, you selectively quote (or make shit up entirely, as you are prone to do) to back up an argument you feel like fabricating at whatever moment you feel it is advantageous to make it.
Quote:
If these contracts are ultimately paid for by Iraqi oil, then is it a problem for you?
If that oil is used to pay back American tax dollars, I am fine with it. Anything taken from Iraqi oil that is NOT put to paying back American tax dollars is a different story (and a far more complicated one).
grover, you're being purposely dense. Do you need a history lesson?
We're talking about Iraq under Hussein, specifically the Iraq that developed very quickly and modernized faster than most (all?) other ME nations.
Oh my God, thanks for the ****ing newsbreak that their past is tumultuous, because I was under the illusion that it was the one nation in the world that never had any problems.
The last sentence of your article:
The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
If it lasted "well into the 1970s" then it ended there as well, or else it would have lasted "to the present". You quote a giant text only to find the last ****ing sentence proves it out-of-context.
Through massive cooperation with the West, Iraq was built up in the 1980s (the period your tome does not lead up to) as a very economically advanced nation with great education and health care (relative to their neighbors). After UN war in 1991 (where civilian infrastructure was purposely destroyed en masse) and a subsequent decade of sanctions, Iraq became a place where millions died from treatable disease and malnutrition.
Connect the ****ing dots. And next time you feel it necessary to post 1000 words of someone else's wisdom make sure they have Thing 1 to do with the topic at hand.
If it lasted "well into the 1970s" then it ended there as well, or else it would have lasted "to the present". You quote a giant text only to find the last ****ing sentence proves it out-of-context.
Through massive cooperation with the West, Iraq was built up in the 1980s (the period your tome does not lead up to) as a very economically advanced nation with great education and health care (relative to their neighbors). After UN war in 1991 (where civilian infrastructure was purposely destroyed en masse) and a subsequent decade of sanctions, Iraq became a place where millions died from treatable disease and malnutrition.
Connect the ****ing dots. And next time you feel it necessary to post 1000 words of someone else's wisdom make sure they have Thing 1 to do with the topic at hand.
Getting a little miffed, are we? The last sentence proves the exact point I was making: Iraq has never been stable. The 12 years of "economic strangulation" that you talk about is not the reason for the current unrest. The rest of the quote was to provide some context. I'm not sure how you conclude that it was out of context at all.
So the instability lasted well into the 1970's. About the time that Saddam came in and started ruling with an iron fist. That quelled the rebellion, but it was always there bubbling under the surface. Now that he's gone we see it well up again (it didn't end. It was just hidden. Hundreds of thousands of dead kurds ring a bell?). The country isn't one devastated "mainly by economic strangulation" as you say. The turmoil isn't a result of that.
To recap in case you missed it in your blind rage, the British were the reason Iraq has never been stable. They even went so far as to create instability to keep themselves in a position to influence the government. Fast-forward to Saddam's time, when, early on, he was the US gov'ts best buddy in the region. Then he became the pariah.
Have you connected the dots yet? We (the US and British) cause a history of instability but you're somehow surprised that it's going up in flames now? And that US mega-corporations are going to profit from all this? That's the picture I'm seeing. If you don't see it, that's your decision.
So by not joining in the game of politick soggy biscuit I am open for criticism for not being a part of the group?
No. By joining the conversation you're open to criticism. I was plenty clear. Where do you make this stuff up?
I've not bashed Bush, or any politician here. You made a point, and I'm asking you to validate it. Why on earth should U.S. tax dollars be repaid if we're making the decisions about how to spend those tax dollars?
The last sentence proves the exact point I was making: Iraq has never been stable.
The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
The country was "stable" under Hussein, even at war it was stable politically.
Saddam took power in 1979, now do you think there's a reason why your borrowed genius says "well into the 1970s"?
No? Probably just picked that out at random?
Quote:
The 12 years of "economic strangulation" that you talk about is not the reason for the current unrest. The rest of the quote was to provide some context. I'm not sure how you conclude that it was out of context at all.
It's not "the" reason, it's part of "the" reason. Removing the dictator is the biggest part of "the" reason (which is something I said and you failed to read even though I use a plain form of English). The lack of a developed and strong economy makes political strugge and uncertainty infinitely worse. The width and breadth of today's instability can certainly be attributed to Iraq's pitiful state in the economic area.
What you need is some basic reading skill and we wouldn't be where we are now. I will go ahead and break it down for you again.
I said:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The economic devastation part of the sentence is placed after "country", it's a way of describing the country, not the dictatorship or the turmoil (which came earlier in the sentence).
Read it again; but slower this time.
Quote:
So the instability lasted well into the 1970's. About the time that Saddam came in and started ruling with an iron fist. That quelled the rebellion, but it was always there bubbling under the surface.
Which means the country wasn't in... turmoil.
Iraq was quite fat and happy when Hussein decided to take on Iran. A fairly united country against a common enemy.
Quote:
The country isn't one devastated "mainly by economic strangulation" as you say. The turmoil isn't a result of that.
The country was devastated physically/economically mainly by UN bombing and UN sanction. This is fact.
The political turmoil is exacerbated to an exponential degree by this physical/economic devastation.
This is a concept I laid out in my first sentence above (Grade 12 reading level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale).
Quote:
To recap in case you missed it in your blind rage, the British were the reason Iraq has never been stable.
You should've cropped out that last sentence, because you're just lying now. The paper explains why Iraq was unstable into the late 1970s (your source's words, not mine). It's poor form you summarize a document in a way that contradicts the document itself.
I wouldn't call it rage, I would call it a mix of frustration and offense. People who are aggresively ignorant and lie about their own sources insult my intelligence.
Quote:
We (the US and British) cause a history of instability but you're somehow surprised that it's going up in flames now?
Whoah, the US now? We supported their uniting figure for years until he got too fresh for us. The UK ****ed them up in the 19th century.
Again you contradict your own sources; very poor form.
Quote:
And that US mega-corporations are going to profit from all this? That's the picture I'm seeing. If you don't see it, that's your decision.
I'm sure they will profit, I'm not against that as an idea. We'll have to see *how* they profit before I'm outraged.
"EVERYONE'S foreign policy is ALWAYS about their own best interest. It is stupid to run a nation any other way"
groverat, you said that back in March. I assume you stand by it? Since foreign policy is generally guided by a plan, it seems to me that keeping Iraq unstable has been in the cards for some time now. To serve US interests. Yet you claim that it's about Iraqi freedom and that we had nothing to do with the instability we're now seeing over there.
You made a point, and I'm asking you to validate it.
You asked for my opinion on a different subject and then said I was unwilling to criticze Dubya, you never addressed anything I actually said. This is your style, surely you know your own style by now.
Quote:
Why on earth should U.S. tax dollars be repaid if we're making the decisions about how to spend those tax dollars?
As long as the idea is for those tax dollars to be spent helping the Iraqi people and creating a new infrastructure that will one day (sooner rather than later) but under their control, it's only natural they pay it back.
Corporations gouging the government, government officials being unduly influenced and such are unrelated to the basic idea of what I outlined above. Specific cases of fraud and whatnot should be punished, and severely.
groverat, you said that back in March. I assume you stand by it? Since foreign policy is generally guided by a plan, it seems to me that keeping Iraq unstable has been in the cards for some time now.
Keeping Saddam in power for two decades promoted instability?
Removing him certainly did, but I hardly see how that fits "some time now", which is used to indicate an extended period of time.
There was political instability after UN Gulf War '91 when the Shia rebelled in the south... a rebellion we helped stamp out to keep Saddam in power.
So again, before we started OperationIraqiLiberation 2003 how exactly was the US promoting instability in Iraq?
grover, while we're in English class, how's about you explain to me the meaning of the word "mainly" in your sentence: There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
You're saying the turmoil is the result of ousting a dictator AND that the country has been "devastated mainly by economic strangulation." I'm saying the country is in turmoil because the dictator has been ousted AND because we contributed to instability over the years. All in the US' best interests.
Quote:
Which means the country wasn't in... turmoil
Now you're taking me out of context. The rest of my quote uses the slaughter of the Kurds in the north as an example of the instability that continued in Iraq during Saddam's reign. I don't think that the country was a picture of stability during his time.
-t
ps - Enough with the personal insults. I generally like you, grover, but don't accuse me of being stupid.
grover, while we're in English class, how's about you explain to me the meaning of the word "mainly" in your sentence: There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
Easy.
"mainly" modifies the devastation. "devastated mainly by economic strangulation" means exactly what it says. Iraq was mainly devastated by economic strangulation.
Now you try to argue that is me saying the turmoil was caused by economic strangulation. But those of us who know that "devastation" and "turmoil" are different things know that there is a reason those words were used in the sentence.
Quote:
I'm saying the country is in turmoil because the dictator has been ousted AND because we contributed to instability over the years. All in the US' best interests.
You have said that the US contributed to the instability, but you haven't given any evidence at all that this is true. I am saying that, until War'03, the US promoted political stability within Iraq by upholding an "evil" dictator. Which, in my opinion, is morally worse.
Quote:
Now you're taking me out of context. The rest of my quote uses the slaughter of the Kurds in the north as an example of the instability that continued in Iraq during Saddam's reign. I don't think that the country was a picture of stability during his time.
A dictator crushing rebellion promotes that dictator's control, which is the opposite of fostering instability.
Quote:
I generally like you, grover, but don't accuse me of being stupid.
A dictator crushing rebellion promotes that dictator's control, which is the opposite of fostering instability.
So, prior to the crushing, was there stability?
Quote:
You have said that the US contributed to the instability, but you haven't given any evidence at all that this is true. I am saying that, until War'03, the US promoted political stability within Iraq by upholding an "evil" dictator. Which, in my opinion, is morally worse.
Hmm. I guess I'll have to dig some stuff up then. I still maintain that it's generally US foreign policy in the region to promote instability. Lemme get back to you on that...
Well, yeah. That was about all Iraq had going for it pre-War2003.
That was the reason the West kept an evil bastard as a dictator. That's why we helped him crush rebellion and dissent for a decade.
And this is nothing new, critics of Iraq policy who followed this thing before Dubya started drumming are well aware of what I'm talking about. Listen to Noam.
You asked for my opinion on a different subject and then said I was unwilling to criticze Dubya, you never addressed anything I actually said. This is your style, surely you know your own style by now.
Groverat, I've quoted you multiple times asking you to clarify. It's disingenuous to claim that I didn't or don't address what you said or say.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
As long as the idea is for those tax dollars to be spent helping the Iraqi people and creating a new infrastructure that will one day (sooner rather than later) but under their control, it's only natural they pay it back.
Corporations gouging the government, government officials being unduly influenced and such are unrelated to the basic idea of what I outlined above. Specific cases of fraud and whatnot should be punished, and severely.
It could easily be considered fraudulent for the U.S. to give out contracts at prices we decide and then force the Iraqis to pay us back at our rates because 'it's only natural' when they could do it themselves for cheaper. I think that's pretty much a text book case of fraud or whatnot.
This is apparently what's happening and why I believe your stance in this thread is worthy of criticism. You refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. is (apparently) extorting billions of dollars out of Iraq, and you go so far as to claim it to be natural. In fact it's very wrong. By your definition it should be punished, and severely.
If a democratic Iraq opted to take our aid/loans for our companies to rebuild at our prices and interest rates, then your assertion would be correct. It would be natural for them to pay us back. But this isn't the case. It's not the reality of the situation.
If Iraq asked for our loans, they should pay them back.
If the Bush administration is forcing these contracts on the country, shouldn't the administration be punished severely?
Groverat, I've quoted you multiple times asking you to clarify. It's disingenuous to claim that I didn't or don't address what you said or say.
Is there anything I haven't address?
Hell, I even address things you make up and attribute to me.
Quote:
It could easily be considered fraudulent for the U.S. to give out contracts at prices we decide and then force the Iraqis to pay us back at our rates because 'it's only natural' when they could do it themselves for cheaper. I think that's pretty much a text book case of fraud or whatnot.
Could they do it for themselves cheaper? What would be required for them to even do it themselves?
You'll notice that other nations are whining they aren't involved, not that Iraqi Infrastructure Rebuilding Company isn't doing it.
Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. is (apparently) extorting billions of dollars out of Iraq, and you go so far as to claim it to be natural. In fact it's very wrong. By your definition it should be punished, and severely.
I don't consider it extortion. You draw black and white lines on a grey world and expect others to immediately adopt your view when your strongest backing is putting "apparently" in quotation marks?
Quote:
If a democratic Iraq opted to take our aid/loans for our companies to rebuild at our prices and interest rates, then your assertion would be correct.
What democratic Iraq?
An Iraq left "alone" would likely (according to everyone from Bush to Chomsky to Iraqis themselves) turn right into an Islamic dictatorship... so what democratic Iraq are you talking about?
Quote:
If the Bush administration is forcing these contracts on the country, shouldn't the administration be punished severely?
What is "the country"? Are the people of Iraq going to suffer any loss?
Well, yeah. That was about all Iraq had going for it pre-War2003.
That was the reason the West kept an evil bastard as a dictator. That's why we helped him crush rebellion and dissent for a decade.
And this is nothing new, critics of Iraq policy who followed this thing before Dubya started drumming are well aware of what I'm talking about. Listen to Noam.
Heh, funny you should mention Noam. Yes, he agrees that the US was keeping Saddam in power for "stability" reasons, but he says "'stability' means security for 'the upper clases and large foreign enterprises.' It is therefore possible to destabilize in the name of stability" (Deterring Deomcracy, p. 419.)
So in a manner of speaking, we're both right. The US was seeking stability in the way that Chomsky describes it. And I prefer to call that instability.
-t
ps - I'm still gathering sources for proof that the US actively sought to keep Iraq unstable (or make it so, depending on what you think is stable) during the past 20 or so years.
So in a manner of speaking, we're both right. The US was seeking stability in the way that Chomsky describes it. And I prefer to call that instability.
For the purposes of this conversation I assumed that we were defining current-Iraq as unstable. Pre-war Iraq was far more stable than current-Iraq.
The dictatorship made it that way, the removal of that dictator created instability("turmoil"), an instability/turmoil exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair.
That's my only point. I don't even ****ing remember what we were talking about.
Comments
He still has stock options with the company he said he cut all financial ties with.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ith_the_truth/
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I defintely wouldn't say America is getting rich... however... Cheney seems to be doing ok.
He still has stock options with the company he said he cut all financial ties with.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ith_the_truth/
The stock options are in a "charitable trust." The money he receives every year is similar to a pension and is already set in stone. Bah. I hate it when people who claim to hate lying and spinning lie and spin themselves.
And he took out insurance to see that he still gets his promised salary. Wish I could get that kinda insurance.
Added:
Oh... and he's the one that said the was "taking a bath" by giving up his salary at Haliburton. Explain to me how he's taking a bath?
Originally posted by groverat
Is it fine?
It would be, but you continue to be in the discussion. That's fine too, but it opens you up for criticism.
Now I'm not saying you like Dubya. I'm saying you're not willing to criticize him here. There's a difference. You have in the past said you wouldn't because there are enough people here to do it for you.
If these contracts are ultimately paid for by Iraqi oil, then is it a problem for you?
I'm saying you're not willing to criticize him here. There's a difference. You have in the past said you wouldn't because there are enough people here to do it for you.
So by not joining in the game of politick soggy biscuit I am open for criticism for not being a part of the group?
"One of us, we accept you! Gooble-gobble gooble-gobble one of us!"
You use a rubric of establishing credibility by bashing specific politicians, which is silly, pointless and does nothing to display any actual knowledge (which should be the rubric by which credibility is established). So to put it curtly, **** your silly game I choose not to play it.
I have in the past said there is no point, not that I "wouldn't". And again, you selectively quote (or make shit up entirely, as you are prone to do) to back up an argument you feel like fabricating at whatever moment you feel it is advantageous to make it.
If these contracts are ultimately paid for by Iraqi oil, then is it a problem for you?
If that oil is used to pay back American tax dollars, I am fine with it. Anything taken from Iraqi oil that is NOT put to paying back American tax dollars is a different story (and a far more complicated one).
grover, you're being purposely dense. Do you need a history lesson?
We're talking about Iraq under Hussein, specifically the Iraq that developed very quickly and modernized faster than most (all?) other ME nations.
Oh my God, thanks for the ****ing newsbreak that their past is tumultuous, because I was under the illusion that it was the one nation in the world that never had any problems.
The last sentence of your article:
The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
If it lasted "well into the 1970s" then it ended there as well, or else it would have lasted "to the present". You quote a giant text only to find the last ****ing sentence proves it out-of-context.
Through massive cooperation with the West, Iraq was built up in the 1980s (the period your tome does not lead up to) as a very economically advanced nation with great education and health care (relative to their neighbors). After UN war in 1991 (where civilian infrastructure was purposely destroyed en masse) and a subsequent decade of sanctions, Iraq became a place where millions died from treatable disease and malnutrition.
Connect the ****ing dots. And next time you feel it necessary to post 1000 words of someone else's wisdom make sure they have Thing 1 to do with the topic at hand.
Originally posted by groverat
torifile:
If it lasted "well into the 1970s" then it ended there as well, or else it would have lasted "to the present". You quote a giant text only to find the last ****ing sentence proves it out-of-context.
Through massive cooperation with the West, Iraq was built up in the 1980s (the period your tome does not lead up to) as a very economically advanced nation with great education and health care (relative to their neighbors). After UN war in 1991 (where civilian infrastructure was purposely destroyed en masse) and a subsequent decade of sanctions, Iraq became a place where millions died from treatable disease and malnutrition.
Connect the ****ing dots. And next time you feel it necessary to post 1000 words of someone else's wisdom make sure they have Thing 1 to do with the topic at hand.
Getting a little miffed, are we? The last sentence proves the exact point I was making: Iraq has never been stable. The 12 years of "economic strangulation" that you talk about is not the reason for the current unrest. The rest of the quote was to provide some context. I'm not sure how you conclude that it was out of context at all.
So the instability lasted well into the 1970's. About the time that Saddam came in and started ruling with an iron fist. That quelled the rebellion, but it was always there bubbling under the surface. Now that he's gone we see it well up again (it didn't end. It was just hidden. Hundreds of thousands of dead kurds ring a bell?). The country isn't one devastated "mainly by economic strangulation" as you say. The turmoil isn't a result of that.
To recap in case you missed it in your blind rage, the British were the reason Iraq has never been stable. They even went so far as to create instability to keep themselves in a position to influence the government. Fast-forward to Saddam's time, when, early on, he was the US gov'ts best buddy in the region. Then he became the pariah.
Have you connected the dots yet? We (the US and British) cause a history of instability but you're somehow surprised that it's going up in flames now? And that US mega-corporations are going to profit from all this? That's the picture I'm seeing. If you don't see it, that's your decision.
Originally posted by groverat
So by not joining in the game of politick soggy biscuit I am open for criticism for not being a part of the group?
No. By joining the conversation you're open to criticism. I was plenty clear. Where do you make this stuff up?
I've not bashed Bush, or any politician here. You made a point, and I'm asking you to validate it. Why on earth should U.S. tax dollars be repaid if we're making the decisions about how to spend those tax dollars?
Getting a little miffed, are we?
I am insulted by aggressive ignorance, yes.
The last sentence proves the exact point I was making: Iraq has never been stable.
The continuing inability of the government to gain the confidence of the people fueled political instability well into the 1970s.
The country was "stable" under Hussein, even at war it was stable politically.
Saddam took power in 1979, now do you think there's a reason why your borrowed genius says "well into the 1970s"?
No? Probably just picked that out at random?
The 12 years of "economic strangulation" that you talk about is not the reason for the current unrest. The rest of the quote was to provide some context. I'm not sure how you conclude that it was out of context at all.
It's not "the" reason, it's part of "the" reason. Removing the dictator is the biggest part of "the" reason (which is something I said and you failed to read even though I use a plain form of English). The lack of a developed and strong economy makes political strugge and uncertainty infinitely worse. The width and breadth of today's instability can certainly be attributed to Iraq's pitiful state in the economic area.
What you need is some basic reading skill and we wouldn't be where we are now. I will go ahead and break it down for you again.
I said:
There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
The economic devastation part of the sentence is placed after "country", it's a way of describing the country, not the dictatorship or the turmoil (which came earlier in the sentence).
Read it again; but slower this time.
So the instability lasted well into the 1970's. About the time that Saddam came in and started ruling with an iron fist. That quelled the rebellion, but it was always there bubbling under the surface.
Which means the country wasn't in... turmoil.
Iraq was quite fat and happy when Hussein decided to take on Iran. A fairly united country against a common enemy.
The country isn't one devastated "mainly by economic strangulation" as you say. The turmoil isn't a result of that.
The country was devastated physically/economically mainly by UN bombing and UN sanction. This is fact.
The political turmoil is exacerbated to an exponential degree by this physical/economic devastation.
This is a concept I laid out in my first sentence above (Grade 12 reading level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale).
To recap in case you missed it in your blind rage, the British were the reason Iraq has never been stable.
You should've cropped out that last sentence, because you're just lying now. The paper explains why Iraq was unstable into the late 1970s (your source's words, not mine). It's poor form you summarize a document in a way that contradicts the document itself.
I wouldn't call it rage, I would call it a mix of frustration and offense. People who are aggresively ignorant and lie about their own sources insult my intelligence.
We (the US and British) cause a history of instability but you're somehow surprised that it's going up in flames now?
Whoah, the US now? We supported their uniting figure for years until he got too fresh for us. The UK ****ed them up in the 19th century.
Again you contradict your own sources; very poor form.
And that US mega-corporations are going to profit from all this? That's the picture I'm seeing. If you don't see it, that's your decision.
I'm sure they will profit, I'm not against that as an idea. We'll have to see *how* they profit before I'm outraged.
groverat, you said that back in March. I assume you stand by it? Since foreign policy is generally guided by a plan, it seems to me that keeping Iraq unstable has been in the cards for some time now. To serve US interests. Yet you claim that it's about Iraqi freedom and that we had nothing to do with the instability we're now seeing over there.
Have I connected the dots enough for you yet?
You made a point, and I'm asking you to validate it.
You asked for my opinion on a different subject and then said I was unwilling to criticze Dubya, you never addressed anything I actually said. This is your style, surely you know your own style by now.
Why on earth should U.S. tax dollars be repaid if we're making the decisions about how to spend those tax dollars?
As long as the idea is for those tax dollars to be spent helping the Iraqi people and creating a new infrastructure that will one day (sooner rather than later) but under their control, it's only natural they pay it back.
Corporations gouging the government, government officials being unduly influenced and such are unrelated to the basic idea of what I outlined above. Specific cases of fraud and whatnot should be punished, and severely.
groverat, you said that back in March. I assume you stand by it? Since foreign policy is generally guided by a plan, it seems to me that keeping Iraq unstable has been in the cards for some time now.
Keeping Saddam in power for two decades promoted instability?
Removing him certainly did, but I hardly see how that fits "some time now", which is used to indicate an extended period of time.
There was political instability after UN Gulf War '91 when the Shia rebelled in the south... a rebellion we helped stamp out to keep Saddam in power.
So again, before we started OperationIraqiLiberation 2003 how exactly was the US promoting instability in Iraq?
You're saying the turmoil is the result of ousting a dictator AND that the country has been "devastated mainly by economic strangulation." I'm saying the country is in turmoil because the dictator has been ousted AND because we contributed to instability over the years. All in the US' best interests.
Which means the country wasn't in... turmoil
Now you're taking me out of context. The rest of my quote uses the slaughter of the Kurds in the north as an example of the instability that continued in Iraq during Saddam's reign. I don't think that the country was a picture of stability during his time.
-t
ps - Enough with the personal insults. I generally like you, grover, but don't accuse me of being stupid.
grover, while we're in English class, how's about you explain to me the meaning of the word "mainly" in your sentence: There is turmoil after a decades-long dictatorship has been ousted in a country devastated mainly by economic strangulation.
Easy.
"mainly" modifies the devastation. "devastated mainly by economic strangulation" means exactly what it says. Iraq was mainly devastated by economic strangulation.
Now you try to argue that is me saying the turmoil was caused by economic strangulation. But those of us who know that "devastation" and "turmoil" are different things know that there is a reason those words were used in the sentence.
I'm saying the country is in turmoil because the dictator has been ousted AND because we contributed to instability over the years. All in the US' best interests.
You have said that the US contributed to the instability, but you haven't given any evidence at all that this is true. I am saying that, until War'03, the US promoted political stability within Iraq by upholding an "evil" dictator. Which, in my opinion, is morally worse.
Now you're taking me out of context. The rest of my quote uses the slaughter of the Kurds in the north as an example of the instability that continued in Iraq during Saddam's reign. I don't think that the country was a picture of stability during his time.
A dictator crushing rebellion promotes that dictator's control, which is the opposite of fostering instability.
I generally like you, grover, but don't accuse me of being stupid.
Ignorance is different than stupidity, silly boy.
A dictator crushing rebellion promotes that dictator's control, which is the opposite of fostering instability.
So, prior to the crushing, was there stability?
You have said that the US contributed to the instability, but you haven't given any evidence at all that this is true. I am saying that, until War'03, the US promoted political stability within Iraq by upholding an "evil" dictator. Which, in my opinion, is morally worse.
Hmm. I guess I'll have to dig some stuff up then. I still maintain that it's generally US foreign policy in the region to promote instability. Lemme get back to you on that...
Ignorance is different than stupidity, silly boy.
Peace and Pearl Jam. 8)
So, prior to the crushing, was there stability?
Well, yeah. That was about all Iraq had going for it pre-War2003.
That was the reason the West kept an evil bastard as a dictator. That's why we helped him crush rebellion and dissent for a decade.
And this is nothing new, critics of Iraq policy who followed this thing before Dubya started drumming are well aware of what I'm talking about. Listen to Noam.
Originally posted by groverat
You asked for my opinion on a different subject and then said I was unwilling to criticze Dubya, you never addressed anything I actually said. This is your style, surely you know your own style by now.
Groverat, I've quoted you multiple times asking you to clarify. It's disingenuous to claim that I didn't or don't address what you said or say.
Originally posted by groverat
As long as the idea is for those tax dollars to be spent helping the Iraqi people and creating a new infrastructure that will one day (sooner rather than later) but under their control, it's only natural they pay it back.
Corporations gouging the government, government officials being unduly influenced and such are unrelated to the basic idea of what I outlined above. Specific cases of fraud and whatnot should be punished, and severely.
It could easily be considered fraudulent for the U.S. to give out contracts at prices we decide and then force the Iraqis to pay us back at our rates because 'it's only natural' when they could do it themselves for cheaper. I think that's pretty much a text book case of fraud or whatnot.
This is apparently what's happening and why I believe your stance in this thread is worthy of criticism. You refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. is (apparently) extorting billions of dollars out of Iraq, and you go so far as to claim it to be natural. In fact it's very wrong. By your definition it should be punished, and severely.
If a democratic Iraq opted to take our aid/loans for our companies to rebuild at our prices and interest rates, then your assertion would be correct. It would be natural for them to pay us back. But this isn't the case. It's not the reality of the situation.
If Iraq asked for our loans, they should pay them back.
If the Bush administration is forcing these contracts on the country, shouldn't the administration be punished severely?
Groverat, I've quoted you multiple times asking you to clarify. It's disingenuous to claim that I didn't or don't address what you said or say.
Is there anything I haven't address?
Hell, I even address things you make up and attribute to me.
It could easily be considered fraudulent for the U.S. to give out contracts at prices we decide and then force the Iraqis to pay us back at our rates because 'it's only natural' when they could do it themselves for cheaper. I think that's pretty much a text book case of fraud or whatnot.
Could they do it for themselves cheaper? What would be required for them to even do it themselves?
You'll notice that other nations are whining they aren't involved, not that Iraqi Infrastructure Rebuilding Company isn't doing it.
You refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. is (apparently) extorting billions of dollars out of Iraq, and you go so far as to claim it to be natural. In fact it's very wrong. By your definition it should be punished, and severely.
I don't consider it extortion. You draw black and white lines on a grey world and expect others to immediately adopt your view when your strongest backing is putting "apparently" in quotation marks?
If a democratic Iraq opted to take our aid/loans for our companies to rebuild at our prices and interest rates, then your assertion would be correct.
What democratic Iraq?
An Iraq left "alone" would likely (according to everyone from Bush to Chomsky to Iraqis themselves) turn right into an Islamic dictatorship... so what democratic Iraq are you talking about?
If the Bush administration is forcing these contracts on the country, shouldn't the administration be punished severely?
What is "the country"? Are the people of Iraq going to suffer any loss?
Originally posted by groverat
torifile:
Well, yeah. That was about all Iraq had going for it pre-War2003.
That was the reason the West kept an evil bastard as a dictator. That's why we helped him crush rebellion and dissent for a decade.
And this is nothing new, critics of Iraq policy who followed this thing before Dubya started drumming are well aware of what I'm talking about. Listen to Noam.
Heh, funny you should mention Noam. Yes, he agrees that the US was keeping Saddam in power for "stability" reasons, but he says "'stability' means security for 'the upper clases and large foreign enterprises.' It is therefore possible to destabilize in the name of stability" (Deterring Deomcracy, p. 419.)
So in a manner of speaking, we're both right. The US was seeking stability in the way that Chomsky describes it. And I prefer to call that instability.
-t
ps - I'm still gathering sources for proof that the US actively sought to keep Iraq unstable (or make it so, depending on what you think is stable) during the past 20 or so years.
So in a manner of speaking, we're both right. The US was seeking stability in the way that Chomsky describes it. And I prefer to call that instability.
For the purposes of this conversation I assumed that we were defining current-Iraq as unstable. Pre-war Iraq was far more stable than current-Iraq.
The dictatorship made it that way, the removal of that dictator created instability("turmoil"), an instability/turmoil exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair.
That's my only point. I don't even ****ing remember what we were talking about.