Ergo, you're advocating torture? I mean, if they have that alternative, then it's <i>the victim's</i> fault. Do whatever you have to-- if they don't buckle, it's their bad.
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards.
Interrogation is all about making the other person uncomfortable and overpowered so that they are more likely to release information. Torture is about inflicting severe mental and physical pain to extort a confession - and isnt that popular amongst interrogators anyway, because people under extreme pain tend to admit to anything just to make it stop.
What the US interrogators do is deprive them of sleep for as long as the interrogator himself can stay up, without tag teaming, and push them the whole time for information. That is nothing like the extreme sleep deprivation that Blackmage is describing, and I fail to see why that form was even mentioned in relation to this discussion.
Heck with it, I'll just copy over the entire article on US interrogations because based around some of the things being said here, it would seem it hasnt quite sunk in:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It didn’t take long for interrogators in the war on terror to realize that their part was not going according to script. Pentagon doctrine, honed over decades of cold-war planning, held that 95 percent of prisoners would break upon straightforward questioning. Interrogators in Afghanistan, and later in Cuba and Iraq, found just the opposite: virtually none of the terror detainees was giving up information—not in response to direct questioning, and not in response to army-approved psychological gambits for prisoners of war.
Debate erupted in detention centers across the globe about how to get detainees to talk. Were “stress techniques”—such as isolation or sleep deprivation to decrease a detainee’s resistance to questioning—acceptable? Before the discussion concluded, however, the photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison appeared. Though they showed the sadism of a prison out of control, they showed nothing about interrogation.
Nevertheless, Bush-administration critics seized on the scandal as proof that prisoner “torture” had become routine. A master narrative—call it the “torture narrative”—sprang up: the government’s 2002 decision to deny Geneva-convention status to al-Qaida fighters, it held, “led directly to the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq,” to quote the Washington Post. In particular, torturous interrogation methods, developed at Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan in illegal disregard of Geneva protections, migrated to Abu Ghraib and were manifest in the abuse photos.
This story’s success depends on the reader’s remaining ignorant of the actual interrogation techniques promulgated in the war on terror. Not only were they light years from real torture and hedged around with bureaucratic safeguards, but they had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib anarchy. Moreover, the decision on the Geneva conventions was irrelevant to interrogation practices in Iraq.
No matter. The Pentagon’s reaction to the scandal was swift and sweeping. It stripped interrogators not just of stress options but of traditional techniques long regarded as uncontroversial as well. Red tape now entangles the interrogation process, and detainees know that their adversaries’ hands are tied.
The need for rethinking interrogation doctrine in the war on terror will not go away, however. The Islamist enemy is unlike any the military has encountered in the past. If current wisdom on the rules of war prohibits making any distinction between a terrorist and a lawful combatant, then that orthodoxy needs to change.
The interrogation debate first broke out on the frigid plains of Afghanistan. Marines and other special forces would dump planeloads of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners into a ramshackle detention facility outside the Kandahar airport; waiting interrogators were then supposed to extract information to be fed immediately back into the battlefield—whether a particular mountain pass was booby-trapped, say, or where an arms cache lay. That “tactical” debriefing accomplished, the Kandahar interrogation crew would determine which prisoners were significant enough to be shipped on to the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba for high-level interrogation.
Army doctrine gives interrogators 16 “approaches” to induce prisoners of war to divulge critical information. Sporting names like “Pride and Ego Down” and “Fear Up Harsh,” these approaches aim to exploit a detainee’s self-love, allegiance to or resentment of comrades, or sense of futility. Applied in the right combination, they will work on nearly everyone, the intelligence soldiers had learned in their training.
But the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came.”
Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.
Even if a prisoner had not previously studied American detention policies before arriving at Kandahar, he soon figured them out. “It became very clear very early on to the detainees that the Americans were just going to have them sit there,” recalls interrogator Joe Martin (a pseudonym). “They realized: ‘The Americans will give us our Holy Book, they’ll draw lines on the floor showing us where to pray, we’ll get three meals a day with fresh fruit, do Jazzercise with the guards, . . . we can wait them out.’ ”
Even more challenging was that these detainees bore little resemblance to traditional prisoners of war. The army’s interrogation manual presumed adversaries who were essentially the mirror image of their captors, motivated by emotions that all soldiers share. A senior intelligence official who debriefed prisoners in the 1989 U.S. operation in Panama contrasts the battlefield then and now: “There were no martyrs down there, believe me,” he chuckles. “The Panamanian forces were more understandable people for us. Interrogation was pretty straightforward: ‘Love of Family’ [an army-manual approach, promising, say, contact with wife or children in exchange for cooperation] or, ‘Here’s how you get out of here as fast as you can.’ ”
“Love of family” often had little purchase among the terrorists, however—as did love of life. “The jihadists would tell you, ‘I’ve divorced this life, I don’t care about my family,’ ” recalls an interrogator at Guantánamo. “You couldn’t shame them.” The fierce hatred that the captives bore their captors heightened their resistance. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan reported in January 2002 that prisoners in Kandahar would “shout epithets at their captors, including threats against the female relatives of the soldiers guarding them, knee marines in the groin, and say that they will escape and kill ‘more Americans and Jews.’ ” Such animosity continued in Guantánamo.
Battlefield commanders in Afghanistan and intelligence officials in Washington kept pressing for information, however. The frustrated interrogators constantly discussed how to get it. The best hope, they agreed, was to re-create the “shock of capture”—that vulnerable mental state when a prisoner is most frightened, most uncertain, and most likely to respond to questioning. Uncertainty is an interrogator’s most powerful ally; exploited wisely, it can lead the detainee to believe that the interrogator is in total control and holds the key to his future. The Kandahar detainees, however, learned almost immediately what their future held, no matter how egregious their behavior: nothing untoward.
Many of the interrogators argued for a calibrated use of “stress techniques”—long interrogations that would cut into the detainees’ sleep schedules, for example, or making a prisoner kneel or stand, or aggressive questioning that would put a detainee on edge.
Joe Martin—a crack interrogator who discovered that a top al-Qaida leader, whom Pakistan claimed to have in custody, was still at large and directing the Afghani resistance—explains the psychological effect of stress: “Let’s say a detainee comes into the interrogation booth and he’s had resistance training. He knows that I’m completely handcuffed and that I can’t do anything to him. If I throw a temper tantrum, lift him onto his knees, and walk out, you can feel his uncertainty level rise dramatically. He’s been told: ‘They won’t physically touch you,’ and now you have. The point is not to beat him up but to introduce the reality into his mind that he doesn’t know where your limit is.” Grabbing someone by the top of the collar has had a more profound effect on the outcome of questioning than any actual torture could have, Martin maintains. “The guy knows: You just broke your own rules, and that’s scary. He might demand to talk to my supervisor. I’ll respond: ‘There are no supervisors here,’ and give him a maniacal smile.”
The question was: Was such treatment consistent with the Geneva conventions?
President Bush had declared in February 2002 that al-Qaida members fell wholly outside the conventions and that Taliban prisoners would not receive prisoner-of-war status—without which they, too, would not be covered by the Geneva rules. Bush ordered, however, that detainees be treated humanely and in accordance with Geneva principles, to the extent consistent with military necessity. This second pronouncement sank in: all of the war on terror’s detention facilities chose to operate under Geneva rules. Contrary to the fulminations of rights advocates and the press, writes Chris Mackey, “Every signal we interrogators got from above from the colonels at [the Combined Forces Land Component Command] in Kuwait to the officers at Central Command back in Tampa—had been . . . to observe the Conventions, respect prisoners’ rights, and never cut corners.”
What emerged was a hybrid and fluid set of detention practices. As interrogators tried to overcome the prisoners’ resistance, their reference point remained Geneva and other humanitarian treaties. But the interrogators pushed into the outer limits of what they thought the law allowed, undoubtedly recognizing that the prisoners in their control violated everything the pacts stood for.
The Geneva conventions embody the idea that even in as brutal an activity as war, civilized nations could obey humanitarian rules: no attacking civilians and no retaliation against enemy soldiers once they fall into your hands. Destruction would be limited as much as possible to professional soldiers on the battlefield. That rule required, unconditionally, that soldiers distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly.
Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head.
Even so, terror interrogators tried to follow the spirit of the Geneva code for conventional, uniformed prisoners of war. That meant, as the code puts it, that the detainees could not be tortured or subjected to “any form of coercion” in order to secure information. They were to be “humanely” treated, protected against “unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind,” and were entitled to “respect for their persons and their honour.”
The Kandahar interrogators reached the following rule of thumb, reports Mackey: if a type of behavior toward a prisoner was no worse than the way the army treated its own members, it could not be considered torture or a violation of the conventions. Thus, questioning a detainee past his bedtime was lawful as long as his interrogator stayed up with him. If the interrogator was missing exactly the same amount of sleep as the detainee—and no tag-teaming of interrogators would be allowed, the soldiers decided—then sleep deprivation could not be deemed torture. In fact, interrogators were routinely sleep-deprived, catnapping maybe one or two hours a night, even as the detainees were getting long beauty sleeps. Likewise, if a boot-camp drill sergeant can make a recruit kneel with his arms stretched out in front without violating the Convention Against Torture, an interrogator can use that tool against a recalcitrant terror suspect.
Did the stress techniques work? Yes. “The harsher methods we used . . . the better information we got and the sooner we got it,” writes Mackey, who emphasizes that the methods never contravened the conventions or crossed over into torture.
Stress broke a young bomb maker, for instance. Six months into the war, special forces brought a young Afghan to the Kandahar facility, the likely accomplice of a Taliban explosives expert who had been blowing up aid workers. Joe Martin got the assignment.
“Who’s your friend the Americans are looking for?” the interrogation began.
“I don’t know.”
“You think this is a joke? What do you think I’ll do?”
“Torture me.”
So now I understand his fear, Martin recollects.
The interrogation continued: “You’ll stand here until you tell me your friend.”
“No, sir, he’s not my friend.”
Martin picked up a book and started reading. Several hours later, the young Taliban was losing his balance and was clearly terrified. Moreover, he’s got two “big hillbilly guards staring at him who want to kill him,” the interrogator recalls.
“You think THIS is bad?!” the questioning starts up again.
“No, sir.”
The prisoner starts to fall; the guards stand him back up. If he falls again, and can’t get back up, Martin can do nothing further. “I have no rack,” he says matter-of-factly. The interrogator’s power is an illusion; if a detainee refuses to obey a stress order, an American interrogator has no recourse.
Martin risks a final display of his imaginary authority. “I get in his face, ‘What do you think I will do next?’ ” he barks. In the captive’s mind, days have passed, and he has no idea what awaits him. He discloses where he planted bombs on a road and where to find his associate. “The price?” Martin asks. “I made a man stand up. Is this unlawful coercion?”
Under a strict reading of the Geneva protections for prisoners of war, probably: the army forbids interrogators from even touching lawful combatants. But there is a huge gray area between the gold standard of POW treatment reserved for honorable opponents and torture, which consists of the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain. None of the stress techniques that the military has used in the war on terror comes remotely close to torture, despite the hysterical charges of administration critics. (The CIA’s behavior remains a black box.) To declare non-torturous stress off-limits for an enemy who plays by no rules and accords no respect to Western prisoners is folly.
The soldiers used stress techniques to reinforce the traditional psychological approaches. Jeff (a pseudonym), an interrogator in Afghanistan, had been assigned a cocky English Muslim, who justified the 9/11 attacks because women had been working in the World Trade Center. The British citizen deflected all further questioning. Jeff questioned him for a day and a half, without letting him sleep and playing on his religious loyalties. “I broke him on his belief in Islam,” Jeff recounts. “He realized he had messed up, because his Muslim brothers and sisters were also in the building.” The Brit broke down and cried, then disclosed the mission that al-Qaida had put him on before capture. But once the prisoner was allowed to sleep for six hours, he again “clammed up.”
Halfway across the globe, an identical debate had broken out, among interrogators who were encountering the same obstacles as the Afghanistan intelligence team. The U.S. base at Guantánamo was supposed to be getting the Afghanistan war’s worst of the worst: the al-Qaida Arabs and their high Taliban allies.
Usama bin Ladin’s driver and bodyguard were there, along with explosives experts, al-Qaida financiers and recruiters, would-be suicide recruits, and the architects of numerous attacks on civilian targets. They knew about al-Qaida’s leadership structure, its communication methods, and its plans to attack the U.S. And they weren’t talking. “They’d laugh at you; ‘You’ve asked me this before,’ they’d say contemptuously,” reports Major General Michael Dunlavey, a former Guantánamo commanding officer. “Their resistance was tenacious. They’d already had 90 days in Afghanistan to get their cover stories together and to plan with their compatriots.”
Even more than Afghanistan, Guantánamo dissipated any uncertainty the detainees might have had about the consequences of noncooperation. Consistent with the president’s call for humane treatment, prisoners received expert medical care, three culturally appropriate meals each day, and daily opportunities for prayer, showers, and exercise. They had mail privileges and reading materials. Their biggest annoyance was boredom, recalls one interrogator. Many prisoners disliked the move from Camp X-Ray, the first facility used at the base, to the more commodious Camp Delta, because it curtailed their opportunities for homosexual sex, says an intelligence analyst. The captives protested every perceived infringement of their rights but, as in Afghanistan, ignored any reciprocal obligation. They hurled excrement and urine at guards, used their blankets as garrotes, and created additional weapons out of anything they could get their hands on—including a sink wrenched off a wall. Guards who responded to the attacks—with pepper spray or a water hose, say—got punished and, in one case, court-martialed.
Gitmo personnel disagreed sharply over what tools interrogators could legally use. The FBI took the most conservative position. When a bureau agent questioning Mohamedou Ould Slahi—a Mauritanian al-Qaida operative who had recruited two of the 9/11 pilots—was getting nothing of value, an army interrogator suggested, “Why don’t you mention to him that conspiracy is a capital offense?” “That would be a violation of the Convention Against Torture,” shot back the agent—on the theory that any covert threat inflicts “severe mental pain.” Never mind that district attorneys and police detectives routinely invoke the possibility of harsh criminal penalties to get criminals to confess. Federal prosecutors in New York have even been known to remind suspects that they are more likely to keep their teeth and not end up as sex slaves by pleading to a federal offense, thus avoiding New York City’s Rikers Island jail. Using such a method against an al-Qaida jihadist, by contrast, would be branded a serious humanitarian breach.
Top military commanders often matched the FBI’s restraint, however. “It was ridiculous the things we couldn’t do,” recalls an army interrogator. “One guy said he would talk if he could see the ocean. It wasn’t approved, because it would be a change of scenery”—a privilege that discriminated in favor of a cooperating detainee, as opposed to being available to all, regardless of their behavior.
Frustration with prisoner stonewalling reached a head with Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who had been fighting with Usama bin Ladin’s bodyguards in Afghanistan in December 2001. By July 2002, analysts had figured out that Kahtani was the missing 20th hijacker. He had flown into Orlando International Airport from Dubai on August 4, 2001, but a sharp-eyed customs agent had denied him entry. Waiting for him at the other side of the gate was Mohamed Atta.
Kahtani’s resistance strategies were flawless. Around the first anniversary of 9/11, urgency to get information on al-Qaida grew. Finally, army officials at Guantánamo prepared a legal analysis of their interrogation options and requested permission from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to use various stress techniques on Kahtani. Their memo, sent up the bureaucratic chain on October 11, 2002, triggered a fierce six-month struggle in Washington among military lawyers, administration officials, and Pentagon chiefs about interrogation in the war on terror.
To read the techniques requested is to understand how restrained the military has been in its approach to terror detainees—and how utterly false the torture narrative has been. Here’s what the interrogators assumed they could not do without clearance from the secretary of defense: yell at detainees (though never in their ears), use deception (such as posing as Saudi intelligence agents), and put detainees on MREs (meals ready to eat—vacuum-sealed food pouches eaten by millions of soldiers, as well as vacationing backpackers) instead of hot rations. The interrogators promised that this dangerous dietary measure would be used only in extremis, pending local approval and special training.
The most controversial technique approved was “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing,” to be reserved only for a “very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees” believed to possess critical intelligence. A detainee could be poked only after review by Gitmo’s commanding general of intelligence and the commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, and only pursuant to “careful coordination” and monitoring.
None of this remotely approaches torture or cruel or degrading treatment. Nevertheless, fanatically cautious Pentagon lawyers revolted, claiming that the methods approved for Kahtani violated international law. Uncharacteristically irresolute, Rumsfeld rescinded the Guantánamo techniques in January 2003.
Kahtani’s interrogation hung fire for three months, while a Washington committee, with representatives from the undersecretary of defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the air force, army, navy, and marine corps, and attorneys from every branch of the military, considered how to approach the 20th hijacker.
The outcome of this massive deliberation was more restrictive than the Geneva conventions themselves, even though they were to apply only to unlawful combatants, not conventional prisoners of war, and only to those held at Guantánamo Bay. It is worth scrutinizing the final 24 techniques Rumsfeld approved for terrorists at Gitmo in April 2003, since these are the techniques that the media presents as the source of “torture” at Abu Ghraib. The torture narrative holds that illegal methods used at Guantánamo migrated to Iraq and resulted in the abuse of prisoners there.
So what were these cruel and degrading practices? For one, providing a detainee an incentive for cooperation—such as a cigarette or, especially favored in Cuba, a McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich or a Twinkie unless specifically approved by the secretary of defense. In other words, if an interrogator had learned that Usama bin Ladin’s accountant loved Cadbury chocolate, and intended to enter the interrogation booth armed with a Dairy Milk Wafer to extract the name of a Saudi financier, he needed to “specifically determine that military necessity requires” the use of the Dairy Milk Wafer and send an alert to Secretary Rumsfeld that chocolate was to be deployed against an al-Qaida operative.
Similar restrictions—a specific finding of military necessity and notice to Rumsfeld—applied to other tried-and-true army psychological techniques. These included “Pride and Ego Down”—attacking a detainee’s pride to goad him into revealing critical information—as well as “Mutt and Jeff,” the classic good cop–bad cop routine of countless police shows. Isolating a detainee from other prisoners to prevent collaboration and to increase his need to talk required not just notice and a finding of military necessity but “detailed implementation instructions [and] medical and psychological review.”
The only non-conventional “stress” techniques on the final Guantánamo list are such innocuous interventions as adjusting the temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell into the interrogation room, but only if the interrogator is present at all times; reversing a detainee’s sleep cycles from night to day (call this the “Flying to Hong Kong” approach); and convincing a detainee that his interrogator is not from the U.S.
Note that none of the treatments shown in the Abu Ghraib photos, such as nudity or the use of dogs, was included in the techniques certified for the unlawful combatants held in Cuba. And those mild techniques that were certified could only be used with extensive bureaucratic oversight and medical monitoring to ensure “humane,” “safe,” and “lawful” application.
After Rumsfeld cleared the 24 methods, interrogators approached Kahtani once again. They relied almost exclusively on isolation and lengthy interrogations. They also used some “psy-ops” (psychological operations). Ten or so interrogators would gather and sing the Rolling Stones’ “Time Is on My Side” outside Kahtani’s cell. Sometimes they would play a recording of “Enter Sandman” by the heavy-metal group Metallica, which brought Kahtani to tears, because he thought (not implausibly) he was hearing the sound of Satan.
Finally, at 4 am—after an 18-hour, occasionally loud, interrogation, during which Kahtani head-butted his interrogators—he started giving up information, convinced that he was being sold out by his buddies. The entire process had been conducted under the watchful eyes of a medic, a psychiatrist, and lawyers, to make sure that no harm was done. Kahtani provided detailed information on his meetings with Usama bin Ladin, on Jose Padilla and Richard Reid, and on Adnan El Shukrijumah, one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists, believed to be wandering between South and North America.
Since then, according to Pentagon officials, none of the non-traditional techniques approved for Kahtani has been used on anyone else at Guantánamo Bay.
The final strand in the “torture narrative” is the least grounded in actual practice, but it has had the most distorting effect on the public debate. In the summer of 2002, the CIA sought legal advice about permissible interrogation techniques for the recently apprehended Abu Zubaydah, Usama bin Ladin’s chief recruiter in the 1990s. The Palestinian Zubaydah had already been sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan for an abortive plot to bomb hotels there during the millennium celebration; he had arranged to obliterate the Los Angeles airport on the same night. The CIA wanted to use techniques on Zubaydah that the military uses on marines and other elite fighters in Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape (SERE) school, which teaches how to withstand torture and other pressures to collaborate. The techniques are classified, but none allegedly involves physical contact. (Later, the CIA is said to have used “water-boarding”—temporarily submerging a detainee in water to induce the sensation of drowning—on Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Water-boarding is the most extreme method the CIA has applied, according to a former Justice Department attorney, and arguably it crosses the line into torture.)
In response to the CIA’s request, Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee produced a hair-raising memo that understandably caused widespread alarm. Bybee argued that a U.S. law ratifying the 1984 Convention Against Torture—covering all persons, whether lawful combatants or not—forbade only physical pain equivalent to that “accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or mental pain that resulted in “significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” More troubling still, Bybee concluded that the torture statute and international humanitarian treaties did not bind the executive branch in wartime.
This infamous August “torture memo” represents the high (or low) point of the Bush administration’s theory of untrammeled presidential war-making power. But note: it had nothing to do with the interrogation debates and experiments unfolding among Pentagon interrogators in Afghanistan and Cuba. These soldiers struggling with al-Qaida resistance were perfectly ignorant about executive-branch deliberations on the outer boundaries of pain and executive power (which, in any case, were prepared for and seen only by the CIA). “We had no idea what went on in Washington,” said Chris Mackey in an interview. A Guantánamo lawyer involved in the Kahtani interrogation echoes Mackey: “We were not aware of the [Justice Department and White House] debates.” Interrogators in Iraq were equally unaware of the Bybee memo.
Nevertheless, when the Bybee analysis was released in June 2004, it became the capstone on the torture narrative, the most damning link between the president’s decision that the Geneva conventions didn’t apply to terrorists and the sadistic behavior of the military guards at Abu Ghraib. Seymour Hersh, the left-wing journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib story, claims that the Bybee torture memo was the “most suggestive document, in terms of what was really going on inside military prisons and detention centers.”
But not only is the Bybee memo irrelevant to what happened in Abu Ghraib; so, too, are the previous interrogation debates in Afghanistan and Cuba. The abuse at Abu Ghraib resulted from the Pentagon’s failure to plan for any outcome of the Iraq invasion except the most rosy scenario, its failure to respond to the insurgency once it broke out, and its failure to keep military discipline from collapsing in the understaffed Abu Ghraib facility. Interrogation rules were beside the point.
As the avalanche of prisoners taken in the street fighting overwhelmed the inadequate contingent of guards and officers at Abu Ghraib, order within the ranks broke down as thoroughly as order in the operation of the prison itself. Soldiers talked back to their superiors, refused to wear uniforms, operated prostitution and bootlegging rings, engaged in rampant and public sexual misbehavior, covered the facilities with graffiti, and indulged in drinking binges while on duty. No one knew who was in command. The guards’ sadistic and sexualized treatment of prisoners was just an extension of the chaos they were already wallowing in with no restraint from above. Meanwhile, prisoners regularly rioted; insurgents shelled the compound almost daily; the army sent only rotten, bug-infested rations; and the Iraqi guards sold favors to the highest bidders among the insurgents.
The idea that the abuse of the Iraqi detainees resulted from the president’s decision on the applicability of the Geneva conventions to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees is absurd on several grounds. Everyone in the military chain of command emphasized repeatedly that the Iraq conflict would be governed by the conventions in their entirety. The interrogation rules that local officers developed for Iraq explicitly stated that they were promulgated under Geneva authority, and that the conventions applied. Moreover, almost all the behavior shown in the photographs occurred in the dead of night among military police, wholly separate from interrogations. Most abuse victims were not even scheduled to be interrogated, because they were of no intelligence value. Finally, except for the presence of dogs, none of the behavior shown in the photos was included in the interrogation rules promulgated in Iraq. Mandated masturbation, dog leashes, assault, and stacking naked prisoners in pyramids—none of these depredations was an approved (or even contemplated) interrogation practice, and no interrogator ordered the military guards to engage in them.
It is the case that intelligence officers in Iraq and Afghanistan were making use of nudity and phobias about dogs at the time. Nudity was not officially sanctioned, and the official rule about dogs only allowed their “presence” in the interrogation booth, not their being sicced on naked detainees. The argument that such techniques contributed to a dehumanization of the detainees, which in turn led to their abuse, is not wholly implausible. Whether or not those two particular stressors are worth defending (and many interrogators say they are not), their abuse should not discredit the validity of other stress techniques that the military was cautiously experimenting with in the months before Abu Ghraib.
That experiment is over. Reeling under the PR disaster of Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon shut down every stress technique but one—isolation—and that can be used only after extensive review. An interrogator who so much as requests permission to question a detainee into the night could be putting his career in jeopardy. Even the traditional army psychological approaches have fallen under a deep cloud of suspicion: deflating a detainee’s ego, aggressive but non-physical histrionics, and good cop–bad cop have been banished along with sleep deprivation.
Timidity among officers prevents the energetic application of those techniques that remain. Interrogation plans have to be triple-checked all the way up through the Pentagon by officers who have never conducted an interrogation in their lives.
In losing these techniques, interrogators have lost the ability to create the uncertainty vital to getting terrorist information. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the military has made public nearly every record of its internal interrogation debates, providing al-Qaida analysts with an encyclopedia of U.S. methods and constraints. Those constraints make perfectly clear that the interrogator is not in control. “In reassuring the world about our limits, we have destroyed our biggest asset: detainee doubt,” a senior Pentagon intelligence official laments.
Soldiers on the ground are noticing the consequences. “The Iraqis already know the game. They know how to play us,” a marine chief warrant officer told the Wall Street Journal in August. “Unless you catch the Iraqis in the act, it is very hard to pin anything on anyone . . . . We can’t even use basic police interrogation tactics.”
And now the rights advocates, energized by the Abu Ghraib debacle, are making one final push to halt interrogation altogether. In the New York Times’s words, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is now condemning the thoroughly emasculated interrogation process at Guantánamo Bay as a “system devised to break the will of the prisoners [and] make them wholly dependent on their interrogators.” In other words, the ICRC opposes traditional interrogation itself, since all interrogation is designed to “break the will of prisoners” and make them feel “dependent on their interrogators.” But according to an ICRC report leaked to the Times, “the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”
But contrary to the fantasies of the international-law and human rights lobbies, a world in which all interrogation is illegal and rights are indiscriminately doled out is not a safer or more just world. Were the United States to announce that terrorists would be protected under the Geneva conventions, it would destroy any incentive our ruthless enemies have to comply with the laws of war. The Washington Post and the New York Times understood that truth in 1987, when they supported President Ronald Reagan’s rejection of an amendment to the Geneva conventions that would have granted lawful-combatant status to terrorists. Today, however, those same opinion makers have done an about-face, though the most striking feature of their denunciations of the Bush administration’s Geneva decisions is their failure to offer any explanation for how al-Qaida could possibly be covered under the plain meaning of the text.
The Pentagon is revising the rules for interrogation. If we hope to succeed in the war on terror, the final product must allow interrogators to use stress techniques against unlawful combatants. Chris Mackey testifies to how “ineffective schoolhouse methods were in getting prisoners to talk.” He warns that his team “failed to break prisoners who I have no doubt knew of terrorist plots or at least terrorist cells that may one day do us harm. Perhaps they would have talked if faced with harsher methods.”
The stress techniques that the military has used to date are not torture; the advocates can only be posturing in calling them such. On its website, Human Rights Watch lists the effects of real torture: “from pain and swelling to broken bones, irreparable neurological damage, and chronic painful musculoskeletal problems . . . [to] long-term depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions, not to mention feelings of powerlessness, of fear, guilt and shame.” Though none of the techniques that Pentagon interrogators have employed against al-Qaida comes anywhere close to risking such effects, Human Rights Watch nevertheless follows up its list with an accusation of torture against the Bush administration.
The pressure on the Pentagon to outlaw stress techniques won’t abate, as the American Civil Liberties Union continues to release formerly classified government documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit concerning detention and interrogation. As of late December, the memos have merely confirmed that the FBI opposes stress methods, though the press breathlessly portrays them as confirming “torture.”
Human Rights Watch, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and the other self-professed guardians of humanitarianism need to come back to earth—to the real world in which torture means what the Nazis and the Japanese did in their concentration and POW camps in World War II; the world in which evil regimes, like those we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, don’t follow the Miranda rules or the Convention Against Torture but instead gas children, bury people alive, set wild animals on soccer players who lose, and hang adulterous women by truckloads before stadiums full of spectators; the world in which barbarous death cults behead female aid workers, bomb crowded railway stations, and fly planes filled with hundreds of innocent passengers into buildings filled with thousands of innocent and unsuspecting civilians. By definition, our terrorist enemies and their state supporters have declared themselves enemies of the civilized order and its humanitarian rules. In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Victim? Nice try to play with emotions. If these guys were insurgents or terrorists, then I wouldn't call them that. I understand this takes a lot of faith in the interrogation tactics of the US, and it's entirely possible that the people they are holding were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Anyway, nice circular logic - because sleep deprivation is torture, then saying sleep deprivation is used in interrogation procedures, which automatically makes it torture, hence proving that sleep deprivation is torture. You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real. I'd like to see evidence of this being policy, de jure or de facto, before I take the "they're being held without anyone knowing what's going on, therefore they must be being tortured" route.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Proof. Lets see it. My understanding was that Taliban forces did not convene to the rules regarding insignia - preferring to blend in to the population rather than wear uniforms.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but the Taliban were the official government. They were elected beforehand and whether they were a brutal regime or not, they were the government, and their soldiers and police forces were the official enforcement of their power. When you declare war on them, you must fight their army. They did. Wheres the problem? The blending in the population was the great fear the Coalition had, but there were never occurances to an extend that it reached enough attention to justify a headline. the forces were suspicios to the inhabitants and treated them as possible enemies, but there have neither been mamy reports of losses on US side due to surprise attacks of disguised Taliban, nor about civil casualties because of misjudgment by US troops.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Victim? Nice try to play with emotions. If these guys were insurgents or terrorists, then I wouldn't call them that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But how do you know? Not every Iraqi is an insurgent. Not every Iraqi is connected to the uprising. They are suspects and as such they are arrested and interrogated. However, you don't know for sure <i>before</i> you question him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> -- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of, since everybody is throwing around definitions: <i> "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".
Article 1. 1. <span style='color:orange'>Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession</span>, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2. 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. ... </i>
Now lets take a deeper look into the means of torture. First big misconception is, that cutting or chopping, or any other means of disfiguring or inflicting severe injuries, are common torture methods throughout the world. They are not, even in the worst regimes, because of 2 reasons. They are ineffective and you clearly see the results. The recipient is likely to pass out continuously and eventually will tell you what you want to hear.... regardless if that it is the truth or not. It is an ineffective method, because it is not enduring enough. If you continue it indefinitely (eg going on to the toes etc. ) the subject is simply going to die from shock and pain, or rendered into a catatonic state of delusion. <b> Disfiguring torture is a form of PUSIHMENT, applied to political enemies in order to send a clearly visible warning to his associates. Any regime that uses visible means of torture does so in order to create fear. Not to gain information. </b> Treatments like burning, beating, superficial cutting or electro treatments are only effective because of the sentiment of terror that is invoked in the victim. However it is more the psychological effect of the pain that does the trick rahter the pain itself. The torture must be applied for several days to weeks, during which the interrogators first explain the method they are going to apply, to invoke the fear of the coming pain. Then, the victim is exposed to small but constantly raised dosages of pain, each followed by a "recreational period" in which the victim is allowed to rest, or even gets treatment for sustained injuries. The goal is to clarify, that the interrogators can inflict pain at every time and can ease it the same way. These two factors depend on the victims cooperation. The Interrogators will often establish a personal connection to the victim, in order to gain his trust, and try to convince him that he does not have to endure this if he does not want. ("Its hurting me more that you...")
This treatment however must be continued for prolonged times, and <span style='color:orange'>you can never be absolutely sure if the information is correct,</span> since the victim will try to tell you what you want to hear in order to end the torture. That includes <span style='color:orange'>false confessions</span>. The treatment must thus be continued even if the victim confesses, in order to confirm the information. In medieval times, physical torture was applied since more sophisticated methods were unknown. The infamous Inquisition resulted in hundreds of thousands of false confessions by suspected heretics.
Now let’s have a look on sleep deprivation. First off, sleep deprivation as an interrogational method is known since ages. The ancient Romans used it to gain information from prisoners, in ancient China, it was applied as punishment and in very severe chases as a mean of executing a death penalty. Yes, it can be used as a way to torture a man to death. If sustained over several weeks during which the convict is kept constantly awake by measures like tickling or beating. He is not physically injured during the process, but eventually, he will become insane and die a very horrible death.
<b>The effects of sleep deprivation over time are:</b> <i> Night 1. Most people are capable of going without sleep for a night. The experience is tolerable if uncomfortable.
Night 2. The urge to sleep is much stronger, particularly between 3-5 a.m., when the body temperature is at its lowest.
Night 3. Tasks requiring sustained attention and mental calculations become seriously impaired. This is particularly the case if the task is repetitious and boring. Again, the early hours are the most crucial to needing sleep.
Night 4. From this night onwards, periods of micro-sleep occur. People stop what they are doing and stare into space for up to three seconds. The end of micro-sleep is accompanied by a return to full awareness. Confusion, irritability, misperception and the 'hat phenomenon' occur. In this, a tightening around the head is felt as though a hat too small for the head is being worn.
Night 5. On top of the effects previously mentioned, delusions (false beliefs) may be experienced. Intellectual and problem-solving abilities are largely unimpaired.
Night 6. Symptoms of depersonalization occur and a clear sense of identity is lost. This is called sleep deprivation psychosis.
The effects of sleep deprivation are more psychological than physical. Reflexes are impaired but heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and body temperature show very little change. The main physical consequences seem to be hand tremors, droopy eyelids, problems in focusing the eyes and a <span style='color:orange'> heightened sensitivity to pain. </span>
Interestingly, we seem able to catch up with sleep in a much shorter time than was lost through deprivation. A person who loses three nights of sleep might only need a slighted extended sleep in order to feel fully refreshed. </i> Adapted from Huber-Weidman, 1976.
So let us see the effects of enduring lack of sleep. The points above are under normal, means voluntary circumstances under lab conditions. The world record in continued sleep deprivation is held by Randy Gardner who managed to stay awake for 11 day and nights.
Everybody knows the feeling of being tired. It is unpleasant at best. Now I recommend you, just to try for once not to give in and go to sleep. Try this when you have some days off and try to stay awake for 72 Hours. As Marine01 stated, that is nothing an army does not require from its soldiers. That is true. However, there is one big difference. The soldiers have at least 2-4 hours of sleep even during outdoor trainings or on simulated combat situations. These few hours allow for the body to recreate to an extend that the soldier is able to continue his duties. That short amount of sleep is chosen to drive the soldier to a certain limit and push beyond it, to a point where the body continies to function more or less automatically. This limits can be extended by training. The body adjusts to it. However, there are absolute limits to what the body can do. beyon that, it collapses. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interestingly, we seem able to catch up with sleep in a much shorter time than was lost through deprivation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now prolong the period without ANY rest for another 72 hours. Now add some inconveniences.
<b>Denial of nutrition:</b>
Insufficient nutrition over several days result in the body to slow down the metabolism. The pulse frequency and blood pressure go down. The recipient becomes weak and unconcentrated. The sense of tire grows even faster, body and mind is exhausted even faster.
<b>Dehydration:</b>
Insufficient water results in basically the above mentioned symptoms, but does so after one day without enough water. This treatment can’t be applied much longer than 2 days or the recipient collapses. 3 days or more are deadly. (that is under normal circumstances, without sleep deprivation or anything else. A significantly weakened organism can react fatal far quicker) The general effects are loss of focus and concentration within 12 hours without water. Painful symptoms like headache attacks or pain in the kidneys are common sings of dehydration.
<b>Weather conditions:</b>
Letting them stand or exercise in the hot climate of Iraq will increase the above mentioned effects dramatically. After nightfall, temperature falls drastically in desert conditions…
<b>Uncomfortable posture:</b>
Kneeling on the ground, or on an edgy piece of wood. Or simply standing over several hours. You may consider this not severe so I suggest trying it yourself. If you were in the military, you will learn to stand on attention for an hour +. That is to prepare you for the swearing- in ceremony. One and a half hour of standing.... During summertime, after one hour the first recruit usually passes out.
Try and stand still for 15 minutes. Force yourself to do it. You will experience boredom and unease after a couple of minutes. You will look at the watch to when your time is over. Now extend to 30 minute. Feel the feet become hurting?
Maybe you have been in the position that you had to undergo an medical examination that required you to lay still for an extended time period. ( like a CT ) It is extremely unpleasant to lie for 20 minutes still and force yourself not to move.
Now imagine doing this for 5, or maybe 24 hours?
<b>Stress-factors:</b>
Loud noise, like screaming or extremely loud music, the sonic waves directed at you. Sonic waves at high intensity can do permanent harm to the human body. Sound can kill you. (again, the ancient Chinese being very creative have mastered that treatment to an extent where it can be used as execution. Place the victim in a bell and ponder it for a week or so.)
Powerful light sources directed at your eyes (while probably the eyelids are taped up). Especially after enduring sleep deprivation for prolonged time, the Eyes hurt dramatically, the pain becomes physically, the nerves and the head start to hurt accordingly.
Dogs barking to your face. Soldiers pushing you agains the wall, treatening you with their clubs. Especially in combination with the next point very effective....
<b>Infliction of pain.</b>
Beatings on the elbows or on the side of the knee. They do hurt extremely especially under the effects of sleep deprivation. The pain is breathtaking, yet the beatings are not, or almost not visible later, since there are no swollen eyelids or anything else.
<b>Humiliation:</b>
Humiliation practices are the tip on the balance. The methods are various. The first stage is forced nudity and standing openly visible for others on the wall. That is on places where other detainees can see you. There you sand and count the hours. Then, after several hours of interrogation, the interrogator switches shift with a women. The woman is the key in further destroying the self confidence of the victim. He is naked and helpless before the woman. She will mock his genitals and make other deeply humiliating comments. Especially for Muslim people who are very dependent of their vision of manhood, that is devastating, but any man will be mentally vulnerable at this point.
There are more possible humiliation strategies, like exposing the victim to his own, or other, excrement. For example cleaning toilets with your bare hands, or with your detention clothes, which afterwards you are forces to wear on. Or sitting/standing in a bowel full of excrements. being forced to wash yourself with urine. Combine this with the humiliation by being interrogated by a woman, while standing in your fecials.
<b>Sexual harassment:</b>
Homosexual harassment by the interrogators. That does not mean they are actually homosexual. It is a tactic to imply the fear of being sexually abused by the people who have absolute power over your life. It further deepens the sentiment of being lost and hopeless. It reduces the victim to an object. Then they force you into certain positions with other detainees, possibly force you to actually commit sexual contact with the fellow detainee.
Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?
<b>Isolation</b>
By that I do not mean isolated detention, but isolating the prisoner from his fellow detainees. That is done by punishing the other detainees for another prisoners minor failures (like not cofessing). That can be done before or during the actual process of interrogating the prisoner and achieves a deep sense of guilt in the subject, which can bring him to desparation if under severe stress and exhausted.
<b>Summary:</b>
These interrogation techniques mentioned above are the one that are thought in interrogation courses for special forces. These courses are designed to prepare the personnel for possible capture and to teach them how to perform these interrogations themselves if necessary.
These techniques are used worldwide. They are not utilized because they are humane. They are not. They are utilized because of their high effectiveness, and (as a bonus) they do not leave behind visible injuries.
These techniques are superior to any other form of interrogation, including the use of drugs. The Russians used them as well and still do, and they do not really care whether their people dislike their governments methods or not. They are in use because they are simply the best possible strategy available. Methods like electroshocks are contra productive, as the shock might kill a subject in case of heart insufficiencies, and it tends to paralyse (proper word?) the subjects neurotransmitter in the brain, which causes memory loss.
The effect is that, within a few days, the victim is exhausted, tired, full of pain and fear. He is losing orientation, sense of time and the sense for his personal identity. Note that the conditions in the descriptions above are under lab circumstances without any additional stress. The condition described in [/i]Night 6[/i] can be established far quicker in combination with any number of the additional treatments I summed up before. At that point, the so called sleep deprivation psychosis kicks in. That is the point where the interrogators want you. That point is similar to the effect of drugs utilized for interrogation purposes. At this point, you are open for suggestive messages. You can be easily manipulated. You have basically no control over what you say, while every single sense is touchy like a membrane. Sound, light, touch, beatingss, everything feels like 20 times more intense than normal.. At this point, you tell them everything, and most important, you tell the truth. Everybody comes to this point sooner or later, it is a matter of time and whether the person is trained to sustain interrogation or not. But eventually you break down.
Do not proclaim that these methods are humane or anything remotely like it. They are not. They are torture, not only per definition. They differ from more spectacular methods only in the way that they do not leave behind scars. No visible ones, that is. The psychological effects are the same kind of long term traumata that every torture victim experiences. Besides, even these methods can lead to death if the suspect is weak at heart or otherwise handicapped, or if its simply overdone.
So as a closing note: Yes, hardcore terrorists will not talk without this methods, so they are nessesay. I know that. But do not claim that this treatment is not really torture, as they are only forced to stay awake some hours. And do not forget, they arrest suspects based on suspicion. Consider that, before you approve of such treatments. And imagine its you who is arrested, because your neighbors told the police that you have a Kalashnikow in your house.
P.S.: Just read this..... <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Eh? They do have an alternative: tell the interrogators what they know, <i>if they know something</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure.... Thats the problem, you know? How should the interrogator know whether you know something? Full program baby! thats goin' to be a long night!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want proof of all 4 statements, which is going to be exceedingly difficult in light of the two links above. One blown pipeline does not equal failed oil exports, (oil prices have fallen steadily for the last 6 weeks) care international pulling out does not equal eliminated humanitarian aid, water shortages in one city does not equal widespread dehydration problems, and a few blown powerlines does not equal widespread powershortages. What's hilarious is that often towns are reported to be "without power and clean water", when they've been without power and clean water for 5 years. I have provided evidence that the problems you assume are so widespread above are being dealt with - now you provide evidence to the contrary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Middle East Economic Survey VOL. XLVII No 48 <b>29-November-2004</b>
<a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n48d01.htm' target='_blank'>here is your evidence</a>
A long read. I quote some important parts. <i> The following is the text of the lecture delivered by MEES(middle east economy survey) Editor-In-Chief Dr Khadduri at St Antony’s College, Oxford University on 19 November. The presentation was part of St Antony’s College Fall 2004 Lecture Series on Iraq.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite the huge proven oil reserves in Iraq, the country has failed so far to manage its industry efficiently in order to bring production capacity to a level commensurate with its reserve potential. The reason is not difficult to understand. It lies in the <b>political turmoil and wars that have engulfed Iraq throughout the past 25 years.</b> [...] The net result of this phenomenon was that, following a very rapid and extensive development of the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors in the seventies, the oil industry has faced destruction, a lack of investments, low priority in state objectives and degradation during the past quarter of a century. [...] Iraq's oil production capacity reached new levels under the Saddam regime. The most important development was during the first five-year plan (1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979, with a goal to reach 5.5mn b/d by 1983. However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995. Once more, the invasion of Kuwait,<b> followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.</b> [...] The industry had to live from hand to mouth, at times cannibalizing equipment from one plant to make do in another. It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship. <b>Production capacity fell because of a lack of professional oil field management, while the downstream industry suffered from a lack of upgrading and spare parts, as well as repeated attacks</b>. Basically, <b>the industry was left to deteriorate, while its regional competitors were able to increase capacity</b>, expand market share and develop their refining and petrochemical sectors. [...] Secondly, oil was used throughout the nineties to rescue the regime from the net closing around it. There were no oil exports throughout the first half of the nineties. When the oil-for-food program was set up in late 1996, it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. <b>However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions. </b> [...] The main goal of the US authorities during the May 2003 – June 2004 period was to restore Iraqi oil production capacity to its pre-war level of 2.8mn b/d. This task was entrusted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, which contracted Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root and Parsons to do so. The program involved a survey of the state of the industry and the rehabilitation of destroyed and looted infrastructure and equipment. Another objective was added shortly afterwards, involving the US financing imports of petroleum products from neighboring countries to meet rising domestic demand for gasoline as restrictions on car imports were lifted and as the domestic refineries, because of their dilapidated state and frequent sabotage of the feed and distribution pipelines, were unable to meet increased consumption. [...] Despite these myths, which received wide publicity and acceptance because of the quick military victory, the US authorities did not alter overall oil policy. The CPA focused on the rehabilitation of the industry to bring it back to the pre-war production level of 2.8mn b/d on the first anniversary of the war in April 2004. <b>This program has been delayed and its goal will not be met by the end of the year. </b> [...] Furthermore, the US authorities have had to take on the additional task of importing sufficient petroleum products from neighboring countries to bridge the gap between rising local demand and declining processing capacity. This has been no easy task, since despite the fact that the oil facilities were not destroyed during the invasion, unlike the situation during Desert Storm in 1991, there was extensive looting, theft and sabotage after the war. It <b>is estimated that the oil industry alone lost around $1bn in this systematic and organized theft in the first few months after the war. The smuggling of products from Iraq to neighboring countries continues to this day.</b> [...] According to Oil Minister Thamir Ghadhban, Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day. The US Army Corps of Engineers spent around $1.5bn on petroleum products purchases since May 2003. It is costing Iraq now around $200mn a month to import petroleum products, or $2.4bn a year, approximately 15% of the annual oil revenue. <b>These imports are expected to continue for at least two more years, until new units are built in the refineries.</b> [...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And as a little candy, a nice excursion into US liberation politics....
The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the US authorities used Iraqi oil revenue to fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities. A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded <b> US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.</b> [...] Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the $18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid. [...] The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries. [...] <b>Finally, when orders were given in the spring of 2004 to distribute funds to the Iraqi ministries, the security situation deteriorated and development halted</b>. [...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the falling oil prizes:
That has IMHO different reasons, as the Iraqi exports still not even have reached prewar levels. The OPEC has agreed to counter the ever climbing oil prizes in the last quarter of 2004 by raising the extraction levels. The prize has thus stabilized and fell to a new, low level. OPEC has declared that they lower extraction to the normal amount by the end of 2004. This must been in effect by now.
However, the oil prizes fell drastically, allowing the Nations to restock their reserves with cheap oil. These reserves calm the brokers.
As for the Future prospects, there are the plans and possibilities summed up in the essay. In short, it depends on the political development and, more than anything else, on the level of security that can be provided.
As the article explaines, sabotage and even theft of equipment is going on till that day, clearly showing that the US forces are not capable of guarding even the most important strategic points in the area to a sufficient extent.
The reconstruction efforts are hindered, because of the constant fear of assasination or kidnapping attempts on personnel, specialists and representatives. Even companies from other Muslim nations are retreating, yes, even the Iraqi companies are not safe. Many foreing corps are staning in the starting holes to pump their money in and get even more out of Iraq, however, as the current situation stands, they will not risk their investments. With their efford, the reconstruction od Iraq stands and falls.
Let us assume, security is established and the government is running and companies invest their money. In that case, I predict, no, I guarantee you that the reconstruction of that industry will be a disater and a total waste of billion of dollars. From the iraq POV. Such efforts taken by foreing governments most likelydisapears in the narrow streets of corruption and fraud. Pushing money into such a desolate economy is like pouring water over asphalt. I can tell of experience since I have a similar case directly in my own country.
I closure, I want to point out how funny I find it that people who recited their certain kind of beloved media networks back in the infamous WMD debate, for they preached Bushs wisdom about the whereabout of Saddams power of world destruction, while as soon as the wind starts blowing the other direction, they are condemmed as sensation hunting populists that only want to see the popular side of the story.
It is really amusing. I like to resign from this debate now, as it will bring no benefit. Media science shows, that people confronted with information opposing their PoV develope an imbalance in their mind which has to be eased out. Some do rethink their position, some do not. In that case, they must continue to search for infomation representing their cause to dismiss their inner state of imbalance. One will always find information that resembles his cause on some way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 15 2005, 07:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 15 2005, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Victim? Nice try to play with emotions. If these guys were insurgents or terrorists, then I wouldn't call them that. I understand this takes a lot of faith in the interrogation tactics of the US, and it's entirely possible that the people they are holding were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Anyway, nice circular logic - because sleep deprivation is torture, then saying sleep deprivation is used in interrogation procedures, which automatically makes it torture, hence proving that sleep deprivation is torture. You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real. I'd like to see evidence of this being policy, de jure or de facto, before I take the "they're being held without anyone knowing what's going on, therefore they must be being tortured" route. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You accuse me of flawed logic, then launch into comical extrapolation like:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, cut and paste a quote from me where I 'sounded like that'.
And by 'victim' I meant 'victim' of torture. The person on the receiving end. By definition: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entirely appropriate.
And my point, which you've ignored, was that you can't possibly equate <i>voluntary</i> and <i>involuntary</i> sleep deprevation. Physically <i>or</i> psychologically.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 10 2005, 07:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 10 2005, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do not believe Iraq is a mess. I believe mistakes have been made, but I also believe you have been duped by the media into thinking its a god awful disaster. When a man hears nothing but bad news, he tends to believe that that is all that is happening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just came across this link today... A good read. Hopefully it hasn't been posted yet seeing as I am just on the post from this quote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just came across this link today... A good read. Hopefully it hasn't been posted yet seeing as I am just on the post from this quote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that is what I call unbiased reporting <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There is no argument about whether American troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners you have to be an absolute nut to believe otherwise. I dont even wanna see those pictures we were never shown, that were considered too vile for public consumption. Mock drownings in Bagram? 8 dead of 'natural causes'.
This page is damn slow and I cant get on as much any more. I just can't keep up with the usual **** for tat stuff. So I'll just say this one thing about the media...
I come from Ireland, a very conservative country, anti abortion, divorce Just legalised a few years ago, very catholic, etc. I read the papers here they all say the same thing...anti-war....I go to the book shop...one half of the entire new book section is just all these Anti-Bush books, I've never seen the likes of it before. There are no debates in the pubs anymore...so hard to find anyone who supports Bush. Go to the biggest irish political forums...theres hardly any support for him there either.
We are a neutral country, but we let American planes fly to Iraq from our airports. Irish news, not even close to American tv news propaganda about the war, just factual? people saying oh the BBC AP REUTERS are biased? what?? ITV news, Channel4 news, Sky news, its the same reporting and stories in all of them. I have watched Dutch and Belgium news, its the same. So what does that say..oh yes Europe is one big pool of bleeding heart liberals? Ireland has 10 times more in common with the US than we do with France....every country here is completely different. This euro media bias thing is rubbish. AAAAnnnd I wont be able to reply to this for awhile...good thread though keep it up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 15 2005, 02:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 15 2005, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ergo, you're advocating torture? I mean, if they have that alternative, then it's <i>the victim's</i> fault. Do whatever you have to-- if they don't buckle, it's their bad.
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well, I will quote where you said something to that effect. See above.
@the "unbiased journalism" - hey, the media runs the stories that draw viewers. That's how it's always worked, why there was a whole period of jingoism...and dead people draw viewers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ergo, you're advocating torture? I mean, if they have that alternative, then it's the victim's fault. Do whatever you have to-- if they don't buckle, it's their bad.
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. But, no. I didn't say, "cut and paste a random statement I made"-- I was actually looking for one that's actually appiclible.
Thank you for giving me a helluva chuckle tonight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry, but the Taliban were the official government. They were elected beforehand and whether they were a brutal regime or not, they were the government, and their soldiers and police forces were the official enforcement of their power. When you declare war on them, you must fight their army. They did. Wheres the problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Taliban describes not only the officials but also the military forces. It is Taliban milita that is residing in Guantanamo Bay: <a href='http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02020803.html' target='_blank'>As shown here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The blending in the population was the great fear the Coalition had, but there were never occurances to an extend that it reached enough attention to justify a headline. the forces were suspicios to the inhabitants and treated them as possible enemies, but there have neither been mamy reports of losses on US side due to surprise attacks of disguised Taliban, nor about civil casualties because of misjudgment by US troops.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahahahah sorry - but what isnt reported in the media about insurgents and terrorists could fill many thousands of pages. Taliban militia forces did not have military insignia, they got shipped of to Gitmo, and the Geneva convention does not apply. The US still attempts to deal with them in the spirit of Geneva, but they are not classified as POW and rightly so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesnt happen. That's what you cannot understand here. All the torture methods you have outlined above are not practised to that extent by US interrogators. I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do not proclaim that these methods are humane or anything remotely like it. They are not. They are torture, not only per definition. They differ from more spectacular methods only in the way that they do not leave behind scars. No visible ones, that is. The psychological effects are the same kind of long term traumata that every torture victim experiences. Besides, even these methods can lead to death if the suspect is weak at heart or otherwise handicapped, or if its simply overdone.
So as a closing note: Yes, hardcore terrorists will not talk without this methods, so they are nessesay. I know that. But do not claim that this treatment is not really torture, as they are only forced to stay awake some hours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, no US military interrogator is doing it in any way harmful to the prisoner, why are you mentioning it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle East Economic Survey VOL. XLVII No 48 29-November-2004<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the qoutes, but I always prefer to read an article in full. Let us deal with your quotes:
1. Talking about total potential of Iraqi oil reserve ie perfect conditions. These conditions have never been met in Iraq's existance 2. Saddam 3. The Iraqi's havent been able to get it together since their glory days in the 70's. Further on in the article it explains why - professionals jumping ship to avoid Saddam, corruption etc. The Oil industry was already in a bad way before the US showed up, and obviously a war isnt going to make things easier. 4. What I was referring to in 3, nothing to do with the US 5. Failure of the UN oil for food scandal - though not a complete failure from Kofi's son and various other nations who profited immensely from the widespread rorting. 6. Outlines US aims for the country in 03-4, including a scheme to pay for Iraqi domestic fuel needs while oil industry is revamped - further proof that in his nefarious scheme to steal the Iraqi's oil, Bush is willing to brutally purchase fuel for Iraq civilians, no matter what the cost. It also notes that following the lifting of restrictions on car imports, demand for fuel has increased - one has to wonder how, when the entire country is in its deathrows, and everyone is fighting valiantly against US crusader infidels, that somehow their domestic market has increased dramatically. 7. ROFL. And here we discover why you have taken to quoting select sections. That quote starts off talking about "despite these myths". What myths are they talking about? <b>The myth that the war is about oil</b>, as can be seen when we read the preceding paragraph.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war, even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong.</b> Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms. In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
8. The oil ministry has taken a hammering during the war from smugglers, and is still suffering from them. Interesting information, but hardly a terrorist victory. 9. Here is where it all gets very interesting. Oil production is at 80% of prewar levels, or so they claim. (12million/d compared to 15million/d) How this can be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is beyond me. Even if the supply of oil was brought up to prewar standards, Iraq still wouldnt be exporting, because the domestic market has grown 25% (15million/d compared to 20million/d).
Summary: What it looks like to me is that the Iraqi oil industry is operating at 80% of its prewar capacity, and while they are trying to improve that, its difficult because of security problems. Your claim that the Iraqi oil industry is not exporting is correct. Your assumption that its because of the terrorists I believe to be false. Even if things were 50% better, it still wouldnt be enough because the Iraqi domestic market is booming.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as a little candy, a nice excursion into US liberation politics....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ohhh candy, I love candy. Especially candycoated excursions into leftwing fact manipulation of the MM tradition demonstrated in 1.:
1. Only 2% given to Iraqi companies? Its those horrible greedy Westerners stealing it from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi companies just dying for a crack at helping the country... oh wait, the same article just said that all Iraq's oil professionals had jumped ship back in the 80's. It's pretty obvious that the reason only 2% of the contracts were awarded to Iraqi's because they dont have the massive companies employing thousands of skilled oil technicians and packing expensive equipment. This is merely a laughable attempt to make the US look shifty. 2. Correct, it hasnt been spent. This is because you do not fix things by hurling money at them. The money is still there, and will eventually be spent. 3. Same deal - there is no point in throwing money around, especially if companies are hesitant because of the security situation. I find it promising that, despite the security situation, and despite the fact that the vast sums of money being allocated towards oil havent yet been spent in their entirety, that oil production is only 20% worse for the war and subsequent insurgency. 4. This is one you didnt mention - I wonder why:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.
Another attempt was made by some Governing Council members to invite international oil companies (IOCs) to operate in Iraq. Once more, the idea was not well received and hence not adopted.
In fact, there were good reasons to maintain a hands-off policy towards oil at this juncture. There has been, and continues to be, worldwide criticism of the Americans’ alleged ambition to control Iraqi oil, so it was thought to be wiser not to provide any more fodder for the critics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This little titbit of the US maintaining transparency and sovereignty of Iraqi oil slip your notice? Y'know, the whole thing about Brits and Yanks refusing to take certain measures, even if it slowed down oil facility reconstruction, to avoid being seen as theives?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Such efforts taken by foreing governments most likelydisapears in the narrow streets of corruption and fraud. Pushing money into such a desolate economy is like pouring water over asphalt. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with what you said before about OPEC and falling oil prices. However I disagree with this statement here. Clearly their economy is not desolate, see those Chrenkoff links I provided earlier, and also refer to your article on oil - domestic demand for oil doesnt skyrocket because times are looking tough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I closure, I want to point out how funny I find it that people who recited their certain kind of beloved media networks back in the infamous WMD debate, for they preached Bushs wisdom about the whereabout of Saddams power of world destruction, while as soon as the wind starts blowing the other direction, they are condemmed as sensation hunting populists that only want to see the popular side of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry - reporting Powell claiming Iraq had WMD's in no way constitutes preaching. Its big news - and they didnt take a side on it. If they did take a side, then you would here them reporting "Protestors have taken to the streets in their millions today to oppose the disarming of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, which intelligence agencies world wide believe has constructed and maintained massive WMD stockpiles in opposition to UN sanctions." I find it funny that you cant tell the difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is really amusing. I like to resign from this debate now, as it will bring no benefit. Media science shows, that people confronted with information opposing their PoV develope an imbalance in their mind which has to be eased out. Some do rethink their position, some do not. In that case, they must continue to search for infomation representing their cause to dismiss their inner state of imbalance. One will always find information that resembles his cause on some way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT I made an unworthy comment here turning that statement back on you - so to save moderators the time I've deleted it myself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is no argument about whether American troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners you have to be an absolute nut to believe otherwise. I dont even wanna see those pictures we were never shown, that were considered too vile for public consumption. Mock drownings in Bagram? 8 dead of 'natural causes'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one here is arguing that. The only question is whether it was a once off occurance, or a policy. The bulk of evidence rests with the "once off freak occurance" and as such, I sleep easy at night.
As for media bias - that much is obvious. Most liberals dont even attempt to deny that they monopolise the MSM, because its impossible in face of statistics like 13% conservative reporters, 35% liberal reporters, and 52% centrist reporters. They make hilarious claims like "we're liberal, but we try and present the story fairly" - but they dont deny they outnumber conservatives in a big way. Othello's article was yet another dissertation on the pro-islamofascist campaign by the western media.
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT! I edit this in order to clarify a statement I made to the topic of torure, which could be misunderstood. Ill mark the particular area like this here. Ecxcuse me, the post is LONG and I was in a hurry at the end.
Some typo errors are corrected too... bear with me please.
Again, I beg your pardon, I added a quote I lost somehow when I pasted the post. All quotes were not working, so I had to requote them all manually
damn it... I added a summary on the Iraq part. Sorry, that one slippet out too. !EDIT!</span>
<- pwned by marine <3 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I’m sooo owned…..
First off my friend, that article was a try to enlighten you about the economical condition in Iraq, not an attempt to clarify guilt ( except maybe that part under candy but we get to this later)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Talking about total potential of Iraqi oil reserve ie perfect conditions. These conditions have never been met in Iraq's existence<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The paragraph<span style='color:red'>s</span> you are most certainly referring to: <span style='color:red'>!EDIT! That one got lost..... !EDIT!</span> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the huge proven oil reserves in Iraq, the country has failed so far to manage its industry efficiently in order to bring production capacity to a level commensurate with its reserve potential. The reason is not difficult to understand. It lies in the political turmoil and wars that have engulfed Iraq throughout the past 25 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq's oil production capacity reached new levels under the Saddam regime. The most important development was during the first five-year plan (1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979, with a goal to reach 5.5mn b/d by 1983. However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995. Once more, the invasion of Kuwait, followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It states nothing about the condition of Iraqs oil industry, but of its state of development. That roughly means how much production capability is available compared to the resources available. It is only stating that Saddam was trying to achieve a significant increase in production capabilities, to gain an advantage over his competitors, but failed due to the Iraq/Iran war in the first place, the conflict with around Kuwait and the embargo in the second place, taking effect until the present day.
the parts you are most likely referring to <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First, economic projects, including oil development, were seen as an instrument for enhancing the political authority of the regime. The principal objective was that the whole state and the Ba'th Party were there to serve the regime and its security. There were no exceptions and no one was excluded. The oil industry was part and parcel of this policy. This was particularly the case during the first and second Gulf war periods and throughout the sanctions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power. Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man? The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo. Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. The Iraqi's havent been able to get it together since their glory days in the 70's. Further on in the article it explains why - professionals jumping ship to avoid Saddam, corruption etc. The Oil industry was already in a bad way before the US showed up, and obviously a war isnt going to make things easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Oil industry was developing rapidly due to the first 5 years plan long before any war broke out. The economical development was positive and the standard of living for the Iraqi people ( unless not politically opposing) was very high. Iraq was on its way to become the most important power in the region. Those were the glory days you mention. The days of Saddam…. The oil industry was not going a bad way before the US showed up. Even after the Iran war, it almost sustained the pre-war level. The second five year development plan caused the industry to recover and reach 3.5 barrel/day It was damadged by war, but a second development plan was underway, yet interrupted by desert storm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we go. Still quite good export rates after the war. Yet, the economy was severely damaged. At that point, Saddam was searching for a compensation for his losses in the war, and his eye fell on Kuwait
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once more, the invasion of Kuwait, followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam? The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living. If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain. The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today. Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. That is after 25 years of US foreign politics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The industry had to live from hand to mouth, at times cannibalizing equipment from one plant to make do in another. It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship. Production capacity fell because of a lack of professional oil field management, while the downstream industry suffered from a lack of upgrading and spare parts, as well as repeated attacks. Basically, the industry was left to deteriorate, while its regional competitors were able to increase capacity, expand market share and develop their refining and petrochemical sectors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Failure of the UN oil for food scandal - though not a complete failure from Kofi's son and various other nations who profited immensely from the widespread rorting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally have not much info about the Oil for food program, as it did never really cought my attention. If you have some detail I would be glad to read. The article states:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, oil was used throughout the nineties to rescue the regime from the net closing around it. There were no oil exports throughout the first half of the nineties. When the oil-for-food program was set up in late 1996, it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you see the program was actually used to improve the standard of living. Well understandable, since Saddam was struggling for support to remain in power. The plan to bleed him out backfired because Saddam allocated supplies to the civilians and successfully blamed the US for the poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->6. Outlines US aims for the country in 03-4, including a scheme to pay for Iraqi domestic fuel needs while oil industry is revamped - further proof that in his nefarious scheme to steal the Iraqi's oil, Bush is willing to brutally purchase fuel for Iraq civilians, no matter what the cost. It also notes that following the lifting of restrictions on car imports, demand for fuel has increased - one has to wonder how, when the entire country is in its deathrows, and everyone is fighting valiantly against US crusader infidels, that somehow their domestic market has increased dramatically.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you show that you lack knowledge about the region. Fuel is cheap in Middle Eastern countries. Even in countries that do not have extensive oil reserves like Egypt, fuel and cars are cheap like hell. They buy old models which usually take their way from Europe over the Eastern European countries and several owners to the middle east. Egypt is a relatively poor country, yet the people have cars en masse and driving around in the tourists centres all day and night serving as taxis for tourist too lazy to walk to the beach. To acquire a car is for most people a necessity, since there are few public means of transportation. The ones who cannot afford one on their own drive in groups. Since years, no cars had been imported to Iraq. The need for the must be dire. In all intents and purposes, a car is a Mr Everybody’s commodity in the area, but you can assume that during the embargo, fuel was mainly distributed to the military and the few privileged. Besides you need to replace military vehicles destroyed during the war, since the new police and military forces must me mobile. That’s the infamous Third World police unit. A truck and 3 Kalashnikovs.
But lets have a closer look.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In The BRD (Republic of Germany), on one day approximately 17187500 liters of fuel are burnt by civil vehicles ONLY. That was 1989. Since 1990, roughly <b>8 cars every minute </b>were added to that huge amount of consumers. In Iraq, we speak about totals that are so insignificant in comparison. In addition to that, you must divide the total consumption between demands of Iraqi law enforcement and utility equipment. Iraq has no nuclear plants. They have no coal. Their energy production supposedly is based of fuel plants, so consider that fuel is needed to generate that bit of energy which is available.
So do not make assumptions about the “drastically increasing market” unless you understand the whereabouts of the numbers provided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->7. ROFL. And here we discover why you have taken to quoting select sections. That quote starts off talking about "despite these myths". What myths are they talking about? The myth that the war is about oil, as can be seen when we read the preceding paragraph.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I had acted like you accuse me I had edited that part and not provided a link. Please cut your little efforts to undermine my credibility. Lets go into that particular paragraph, and by the way we take into account some of those preceding it…
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'> !EDIT! I did rewrite that part a bit to clarify my statement. Excuse me. !EDIT!</span> Here you see the initial plans proposed to install an international team to overview and direct the reconstruction efford. The plan included Iraqi advisers to participate. It would have made sense, since they know the country, know the people, and it would give the Iraqis confidence that their interrets are properly represented. However, it was decided to keep it in US and British hands. Subsequently, the demands for transparency and control over the allocated funding were not met. That is where every revenue officer will start smelling fishes. There is where the Anti-American opposition in Iraq had a target. It was simply stupid. It could have been avoided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another attempt was made by some Governing Council members to invite international oil companies (IOCs) to operate in Iraq. Once more, the idea was not well received and hence not adopted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The reason for the argument in this point could be seen in the question whether foreign oil companies should extract Iraqi oil, or Iraqi companies. Well, go figure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, there were good reasons to maintain a hands-off policy towards oil at this juncture. There has been, and continues to be, worldwide criticism of the Americans’ alleged ambition to control Iraqi oil, so it was thought to be wiser not to provide any more fodder for the critics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we have the first wise decision the Bush administration has met since the begin of the war.
Since….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More important, perhaps, oil constitutes a focal point in domestic Iraqi politics, and the control of natural resources by the state is a fundamental principle of the country's political ethos. Any interference by the occupation authority at this stage would have served as a rallying point for the opposition and opened a new front against the already battered US administration in Baghdad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So… <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This clear and well-defined policy does not mean that confusion has not surrounded US intentions and motives as far as concerns the oil sector in Iraq. The different opinions, statements and reports aired in Washington at the time of the war in the spring of 2003 did not help matters much. Conservative think tanks in Washington proposed several ideas that were well wide of the mark in terms of the Iraqis’ experience. Some called for the full privatization of the industry and opening it as much as possible to the international oil companies. Others advocated adopting the Alaska and Alberta Province models of distributing part of the oil revenue to the public through checks sent by mail. The State Department-sponsored Future of Iraq Project (Oil Policy Subgroup) also reached the conclusion that privatization is the way to save the country's oil industry. It even went a step further to blame the ills of the industry on nationalization and the public sector, ignoring completely the impact of the wars and sanctions. A more balanced study, which recognized the problems ahead and proposed more pragmatic solutions, was the joint study prepared by New York's Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute.
<span style='color: orange'>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war,</span> even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong. Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms. In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These two paragraphs, if you interpret them correctly, do not take any position towards Bushs motivations. (So at least is my opinion) It states that conservative think tanks have focused around reestablishment of Iraqi oil industry (more or less realistically) and that US officials did talk openly about that matter and studies were made. That is all and everything the article states. It is scientific, its not taking sides. The highlighted sentence it the origin of the “myth” they author is referring to. He is taking this from the distance necessary for an objective analyst. All the paragraph says is, that in fact theoretical discussions about a post-Saddam Iraq were numerous, and that this fact has inspired theories about Bushs intentions. That is true. You can decide for yourself whether those “map exercises” were purely academically or not.
It also states, that the projections were more that off the track. I have a very similar example for such wrong projections at hand. I pay taxes for it. It’s the German reunion. The Government under Helmut Kohl pushed the reunion, as he wanted to become the one who teared down the wall. I order to this, they told everybody the DDR is going to be a huge market and will develop to a new economic motor within 10 years. Everything will be perfect. Well, we had no war about it, but a disaster nonetheless. To rush the negotiations, dire mistakes were made, like completely disregarding the desolate state of the economy. Later, mismanagement of unimaginable dimensions occurred. The results are still crippling our economy (among other things….)
Bush has many similarities in his zeal to achieve his personal quest.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 8. The oil ministry has taken a hammering during the war from smugglers, and is still suffering from them. Interesting information, but hardly a terrorist victory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime? I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 9. Here is where it all gets very interesting. Oil production is at 80% of prewar levels, or so they claim. (12million/d compared to 15million/d) How this can be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is beyond me. Even if the supply of oil was brought up to prewar standards, Iraq still wouldnt be exporting, because the domestic market has grown 25% (15million/d compared to 20million/d).
Summary: What it looks like to me is that the Iraqi oil industry is operating at 80% of its prewar capacity, and while they are trying to improve that, its difficult because of security problems. Your claim that the Iraqi oil industry is not exporting is correct. Your assumption that its because of the terrorists I believe to be false. Even if things were 50% better, it still wouldnt be enough because the Iraqi domestic market is booming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That’s the part you refer to:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to Oil Minister Thamir Ghadhban, Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day. The US Army Corps of Engineers spent around $1.5bn on petroleum products purchases since May 2003. It is costing Iraq now around $200mn a month to import petroleum products, or $2.4bn a year, approximately 15% of the annual oil revenue. These imports are expected to continue for at least two more years, until new units are built in the refineries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of, it was 16 million litres per day, not 15. Furthermore, there’s a small tad of difference you did not seem to notice, so let’s have a look into the tiny little bit of info you did not mention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who finds it? Who wants a cookie? No? I give you a hint:
3.8 million BARREL/day from before the Iran war, or 3.5 million BARREL/day before the embargo is a teeny tiny bit more that 20million LITERS/ a day One Barrel is approximately 160 litres. Now take your calculator… 3.5 million barrel would give us 560 million litres PER DAY. Now compare that to your astonishing, whopping, admirable 16 million litres/day since 13 years.
Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years. Great job! Mission accomplished. Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ohhh candy, I love candy. Especially candycoated excursions into leftwing fact manipulation of the MM tradition demonstrated in 1.:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me too, thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only 2% given to Iraqi companies? Its those horrible greedy Westerners stealing it from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi companies just dying for a crack at helping the country... oh wait, the same article just said that all Iraq's oil professionals had jumped ship back in the 80's. It's pretty obvious that the reason only 2% of the contracts were awarded to Iraqi's because they dont have the massive companies employing thousands of skilled oil technicians and packing expensive equipment. This is merely a laughable attempt to make the US look shifty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question. Really.
Next point. Just read the highlighted statement and tell me, do you really think that is justified? It is a neutral statement, no accusation and not taking side on any way. It states a fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the <span style='color:orange'>US authorities used <b>Iraqi oil revenueto </b>fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities.</span> A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next on, go for the numbers. 74% percent of IRAQI oil revenues was allocated in form of contracts to US companies 85% total for US and British companies, rendering 11% for British firms total. Said 2% for Iraqi firms.
That leaves 13% total for reconstruction purposes. That means, of the 1.5 bn dollars available of Iraqi oil revenues, 195 mn dollars for reconstruction purposes during the first 13 months after the war. (hope I didn’t ditch a null…) That’s really astonishing. And a bit puzzling, considering that…
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the [color =orange]$18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid. [/color]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there were 18.4 billion Dollars of US funds allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction. Why did they not use it then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahaaa. Finally after a whole year! More that 12 moth, they wasted time which was essential. Twelve month.<i> Before</i> the insurgency started!
Now, before you start on US aid that’s paid, so its not bad that they get money out of Iraq’s economy, I like to remind you of the income part a bit earlier. 3.5 nm barrel a day before Desert storm. Since 13 years.
That means we have roughly 4750 days under embargo, which means 16625 million barrel of projected extraction lost total during the last 13 years Let’s take an price of lets say 35 USD per barrel
That brings us to a total of 581875 million UDS or 581 billion of total income lost since Desert storm.
For the purpose of completeness and to prevent you from further accusing me of “”left wing fact manipulation” (which is really amusing since I’m a conservative voter…)
Oil for food was set up late 1996, so lets give them whole 9 years. 9 years of 16 million litres/d, that makes up on: 3285 days for 16 million litres per day make up on: 52.560 million litres. Transferred to barrels, (divide by 160) that would be about 328.5 million barrel total since `96 Lets take our 35 USD per barrel (which is steeply low imho) This leads us to a round up of 11500 million Dollars income due to Oil for Food.
11.2 billion. Less than the amount the US have allocated as additional funding for reconstruction purposes .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Finally, when orders were given in the spring of 2004 to distribute funds to the Iraqi ministries, the security situation deteriorated and development halted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, as we see it was too late. You pointed out at several occasions in the past, that you do not understand the insurgents motivation. Here you have it on one page. One year. One whole year, the US did nothing but stick their fingers in their noses. Why they did not allocate the funding is up to your own imagination, I don’t care honestly, however, the situation was stagnant for 12 long months, in which the humanitarian situation was more than bad. It was failure, like the first weeks in Baghdad when the US did fail to provide civil protection. Those mistakes fed the insurgency until it grew to a point where it broke out. It was a catastrophic mistake to allocate money to US firms, instead of Iraqi corporations and Iraqi government. Political leaders and opinion makers had facts to present and enough evidence for their intention, to show off the US as exploiting imperialists.
Like since the debate, or earlier debates started, you failed to understand my point, that I merely try to analyse the situation and make my assumptions based upon. I try to see the failures and the reasons. Who wins in the end does not really matter for me (except its nice to be right, like in the WMD debate…. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This little titbit of the US maintaining transparency and sovereignty of Iraqi oil slip your notice? Y'know, the whole thing about Brits and Yanks refusing to take certain measures, even if it slowed down oil facility reconstruction, to avoid being seen as theives?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It did not slip my attention, but might point you to the highlighted part in the paragraph you are referring to:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. <span style='color:orange'> In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully. </span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can try to stop smoking, but unless you actually DO, you still buy cigarettes. When they want to avoid being accused fishy practices, they should achieve their goals of transparency. You know its not that difficult to allocate money in an occupied nation. Its easy. You can do as you like. So when you say, that oil pump gets so much, and that one so much, and they get it. Ok? Its not really hard to do because there are no bureaucrats and oppositions that delay actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree with what you said before about OPEC and falling oil prices. However I disagree with this statement here. Clearly their economy is not desolate, see those Chrenkoff links I provided earlier, and also refer to your article on oil - domestic demand for oil doesnt skyrocket because times are looking tough. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. I give the credit to a friend of mine who is a broker and I called him about the topic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the economic part, I have gone into that far far up in this monster post. Just in short, the numbers of Iraqi oil extraction are currently measured in litres/day, the competitors count in barrels….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry - reporting Powell claiming Iraq had WMD's in no way constitutes preaching. Its big news - and they didnt take a side on it. If they did take a side, then you would here them reporting "Protestors have taken to the streets in their millions today to oppose the disarming of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, which intelligence agencies world wide believe has constructed and maintained massive WMD stockpiles in opposition to UN sanctions." I find it funny that you cant tell the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, Powell somehow reminded me of the Iraqi information minister trying to convince himself that its true what he’s talking there…poor fella. No really, it was annoying. WMD here, WMD there. WMD...did I tell you about the WMD by the way? I almost stopped watching the news as I could not hear it anymore....
I have an acquaintance who is in directly and relatively deeply involved in politics of one of the federal states of Germany. He is thus directly in contact with European politics and has thus the opportunity to chat with people that travel a lot and meet important other people. One of them is in the EU foreign ministry. That one has to tell much good about Mr, Powell , as he shall be an honest and credible man. Thus, Powell’s claims of the actual existence of the WMD gave the story a touch of truth, which would not have been there without him. I did not count much for this, as I believed Powell, as a seasoned Military officer was doing his duty whether its right or wrong. I still do not know if he was convinced himself or not, that has to be decided by the Historians, however, I now understand that he is actually an honest man, since his retirement speaks much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT I made an unworthy comment here turning that statement back on you - so to save moderators the time I've deleted it myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should PM it to me, I would be interested. All I can say is, that you are wrong when you put me into a sceme. I rethink my position regularly based on information acquire.
Mr. Bush is such an example: When elected, I held this man for a bad joke, uneducated and clumsy, not able to tell the Taliban from a Boy-Group. The first year also looked like my first impression was true. Absolutely nothing but hot blown air. It seemed like the most insignificant presidency since poor Jimmy Carter.
Then, the Twin Towers were attacked. I saw a new Bush, confident competent (to an extend that he looked competent….) He was right after the incident on screen, days afterwards on screen, still looking like in charge and up to the task. Unlike our own Politicians which looked like some poor victims of rape after they realized that something like that could happen here too. Bush seemed to have found his center. Then, Afghanistan. Carefully planned, slowly taken on, perfectly executed.
Then, he started to call Saddam a supporter of fundamentalists… OK…
The WMD debate is the sad highlight of this charade, and his actions did not only damaged his own credibility in the word, but greatly diminished the USA’s reputation among their partners and allies.
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT! here's the damn summary.... !EDIT!</span>
Well, in closure I want to express my personal point of view on the matter at hand. It looks to me like the US have bitten off more than they can chew. Not direcly in military matters, but in economical.
Their anticipations of Iraqs economy were bloody wrong and their reconstruction efford will never go as planned. It has already startet so horribly and misorganized, that it can hardly come worse.
I can, as I said before, tell from own experience, that this reconstruction will take years and cost mega. Even without fighting in the country. Also, If not finally mesures are taken to actually distribute the contracts to Iraqi companies mainly, the Industry will not really recover. All you will achieve is that more oil is flowing, however, it will not flow into Iraqs pockets.
The situation is promising in that way, that the US have refrained from establishing foreing oil companies in the country, which means that the oil is effectivly in Iraqs hands.
Yet, it must be determined how the New Government will handle the prizes. One possibility might be, that an US supported Iraq would leave OPEC and start selling off oil at competing prizes, which would certainly lead to much lower overall oil prizes, since OPEC monopoly would be damadged.
Another prospective is, that the insurgency will go on and on, forcing the US to maintain their presence, which means a continiung finacial disaster for the US. The only one profiting would be the arms industry, but since taxiation is neglectible atm..... This scenario could result in a situation similar to vietnam, where finally the public support for the US government and military brakes down and the president is eventually forced to find a way out.
Then, well, either Iraq sinks into chaos and civil war (most likely) or a strong leader will emerge and create a sovereing, totalitarian regime. Both variants will most likely involve a fundamentalist touch. However, such a government has prospects and possibilities. Foreing companies most likely will wait with open arms for contracts and opportunities. They do already. That is, only in case the US do not try to sanction such a regime. In that case, it will be isolated and dry out like Afghanistan under Taliban reign.
Now, lets go back to the topic of torture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesnt happen. That's what you cannot understand here. All the torture methods you have outlined above are not practised to that extent by US interrogators. I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT! The methods I talk about here are sleep deprivation and the additional methods mentioned in my last post about torture. I do not mean the ones in my description about physical torture. I just do not want any misunderstandings about that. !EDIT!</span>
I’ve seen photos of several prisoners standing doggystyle on their fellow detainees. That’s more of your taste? The methods I described in short are trained to specialised military personnel in all NATO member states. There is an international military school that organizes interrogation seminaries to members of SF units. These methods are trained there. That has been thoroughly discussed recently in Germany because of several reports of recruits that had been touched a bit roughly during their training. Nothing special, but since we have a draft army, some of the recruits had a problem with it. In that context, Germanys participation in interrogation method training was discussed. During that training, all the things I summed up are applied to the participation soldiers. All of them. However, it is regulated to an extent where it is not harmful. It is controlled. Yet, even under simulated circumstances, the trainers had tendencies to exaggerate and even among really hard SF- soldiers many soldiers had felt the need to break off the courses, in isolated cased it even came to the point where the soldiers collapsed. The truth is, that even under simulated circumstances, the interrogators are in great temptation do “overdo it” You say those methods are not used to full extend? Says who? The official orders? The Pentagon statement? Again, I’m not against such training as it is necessary to prepare soldiers to what they can experience, and I understand the necessity to apply enough pressure on resilient enemies. With this I want to explain, that the power of an interrogator is often a great temptation to “do it properly”. Even under lab conditions.
<a href='http://www.prisonexp.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.prisonexp.org/</a> This is a link to an experiment. It was scheduled to last for 14 days. It had to be aborted after 6 days because of severe sings of depressive psychosis’s and various other traumata among the prisoners. Also, it came to violent behaviour among the wardens against the prisoners. That was an experiment. They played a game. They were normal people volunteered for this, and it turned very real, within 6 days.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I stated above, the numbers up there are under lab-conditions and providing voluntary deprivation. As I said the effect of night six can be achieved far quicker in combination with the other methods. If you need it quick, deny water for 12 hours while standing in the sun. You will have delusion and overall flatness of metabolic reactions within that time. That is why the methods are combined. The whole method is only effective when you reach the point of sleep deprivation psychosis. That’s the deal. If you don’t reach that point, its fruitless and a waste of time. So, rest assured, they have taken the appropriate measures.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, no US military interrogator is doing it in any way harmful to the prisoner, why are you mentioning it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are pictures of soldiers posing over a dead body? A freaking dead body? Why do you think he died? Heart attack? You are one of them accusing others of playing down the insurgents crimes and highlight only US deeds, while yourself you try to convince us of their harmless methods.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no argument about whether American troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners you have to be an absolute nut to believe otherwise. I dont even wanna see those pictures we were never shown, that were considered too vile for public consumption. Mock drownings in Bagram? 8 dead of 'natural causes'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one here is arguing that. The only question is whether it was a once off occurance, or a policy. The bulk of evidence rests with the "once off freak occurance" and as such, I sleep easy at night.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, lets put it this way. Like I mentioned earlier, we had “isolated cases” of young recruits got “tortured” by their drill instructors in order to prepare them for an eventual assignment. That is imho important, however it was not officially intended to be trained to normal recruits. The incidents were not tragic. Simulated kidnapping and being tied up in a ark room for several hours. Things like that. It was declared, this happenings were “isolated cases”. However, looking back into reports from recruits that did claim to be treated improperly in that context over the past decade showed, that Isolated cases happened almost weakly throughout the republic…..It was never ever official policy however.
IMO no , because in one way or another, USA and other developed countries with their economic politics make the rich people richer and the poor people "poorer" (fricking english <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->" ).
Put yourselves in the situation of the Terrorist : your home are destroyed , your nation divided , extreme poverty. These people can only find a way out of reality in the religion. Therefore they become religious extremists.
And every religion wich goes extremist, either Cristianism (=>Crusades) , Jews (=> Mossad ) or Islam (Terrorist in Irak) , ARE BAD.
Developed countries are currently putting everything together in order to make (with or without intention) to make more terrorists.
Poor People have its limits , and when they get an AK47 be aware.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jan 16 2005, 12:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jan 16 2005, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [ This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power. Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man? The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo. Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wow. just...wow. You're suggesting that Saddam was the victim in all of this? Laughable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam? The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living. If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain. The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today. Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. That is after 25 years of US foreign politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't really think that the embargo would have been dropped as long as Saddam continued to stay in power and play games with weapons inspectors, did you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime? I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's a parallel analogy. Car bombings in a city do not equate to being unable to defend refineries, drilling platforms/pumps, or pipelines. Of course there are security holes, but I don't believe they're quite as bad as you would have me. I would look up statistics for how many attacks have been aimed at the oil infrastructure over the past year and a half, but I'm too lazy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...It also states, that the projections were more that off the track. I have a very similar example for such wrong projections at hand. I pay taxes for it. It’s the German reunion. The Government under Helmut Kohl pushed the reunion, as he wanted to become the one who teared down the wall. I order to this, they told everybody the DDR is going to be a huge market and will develop to a new economic motor within 10 years. Everything will be perfect. Well, we had no war about it, but a disaster nonetheless. To rush the negotiations, dire mistakes were made, like completely disregarding the desolate state of the economy. Later, mismanagement of unimaginable dimensions occurred. The results are still crippling our economy (among other things….)
Bush has many similarities in his zeal to achieve his personal quest. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is possible that this war is being mismanaged. However, whether it will turn into a disaster remains to be seen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years. Great job! Mission accomplished. Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, you're not an army strategist, nor a logistics expert, nor an international relations guru. You fail to realize something - if the US would have focused on getting oil infrastructure fixed "before the insurgency started", whatever that means, you know we would be universally criticised by the international community, and all support would be dropped and the rest of the coalition would have pulled out in the face of ignoring other, more necessary infrastructure (read: electricity, running water). Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, and simply naive. Why do you think many countries encourage foreign companies to invest in their country's economy by building factories, etc there? Tax revenue, as well as employment. Giving a nation contracts that it can't fulfill because of lack of human resources won't do anything, just delay the rebuilding. To be honest, the quickest way to do stuff is to rebuild it for them.
Let's put it this way. After the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, would you prefer for aid organizations to give the Sri Lankan government their monetary contributions and said, "go, i wish you well." No! The aid organizations already have the manpower and the supplies to help out immediately, instead of trying for a theoretical "natives gain the 'most'' (which really isn't the most anyway).
Gahh, that post is too long, I'll address the rest later.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->wow. just...wow. You're suggesting that Saddam was the victim in all of this? Laughable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I say that? Where? don't turn my words around. I say, everybody would have done. plain and simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don't really think that the embargo would have been dropped as long as Saddam continued to stay in power and play games with weapons inspectors, did you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As the article stated, is is unclear why Saddam did uphold the doubts about his WMD capacity. My guess is he wanted to keep the possibility in the back of our head to protect himself from an attack. Like the israelis did, before they showed their hand in Jom Kippur conflict. Whether the embargo would have gone on....well that's not the point. Point is, that foreing involvent crippled this countries economy. Thats what the article is about. Again, it does not matter whos fault it is. Its the course of action. Whos fault is it that Saddam attacked the Ayatollahs? Who is responsible for Kuwait? Why did the rellationship to the US fall apart? Find your own answeres, you will nt find it in this particular article.
What the article tell us is, that the US are now struggling with a destroyed economy which they have caused in the first place indirectly with their sanctions. I guess you must love the irony.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think it's a parallel analogy. Car bombings in a city do not equate to being unable to defend refineries, drilling platforms/pumps, or pipelines. Of course there are security holes, but I don't believe they're quite as bad as you would have me. I would look up statistics for how many attacks have been aimed at the oil infrastructure over the past year and a half, but I'm too lazy <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hehe, did you read the numbers? thats not achieved by stealing office equipment you know? Theft and industrial crime to this extend is a very large operation. It requires insiders and much cash to wash hands. If it is so easy to undermine the sites, you cant speak of security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is possible that this war is being mismanaged. However, whether it will turn into a disaster remains to be seen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep, same I heard back in WMD days. I'm curious too....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately, you're not an army strategist, nor a logistics expert, nor an international relations guru. You fail to realize something - if the US would have focused on getting oil infrastructure fixed "before the insurgency started", whatever that means, you know we would be universally criticised by the international community, and all support would be dropped and the rest of the coalition would have pulled out in the face of ignoring other, more necessary infrastructure (read: electricity, running water). Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where is the logic in this? If you had fixes stuff when it was possible without fighting and bomb raids, why should international support stopped? They did not support you anyway! Exept the British and some small fries in the EU hoping for good relations with Washington, nobody supported the war or the reconstruction efford. That is a polemic speach, I know but in general, all the financially strong nations denied support. They also denied support afterwards, because no contracts on reconstruction were available. Bush told those old Europeans where to put the middle finger, after they did express their concernes, ripping apart the European Union in the process of building the "coalition fo the willing" consiting of not so old Europeans...
That is diferent now, since Bush has realized that wihtout financial help and support within the UN, the whole thing will blow up. Now the old Europeans show Bush what to do with the middle finger.
That starts with simple things like the Embargo. It could not be lifted without France or Russia which could just kick in their Veto. Bang, no oil export for you Mr Bush.
By, "before the insurgency" started, I mean 12 whole long month of nothing. One year is a long time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.[/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are examples showing the opposite. Japan after being forcefully opened started a technological and sociological revolution, from an feudal agryculture to a modern, imperialistic industry nation. Within less than 40 years total, they managed to oppose Soviet power and became the dominating force in the Asian waters. All done by directly and intelligently allocation of fundings to key industries.
Take Germany after WW2. Within 5 years, Germany was overtaking all other European economies, after being battered to oblivion. This was the most extensive destruction that ever happened to a nation in history, till the present day. Yet, it was rebuild with US suppport from scratch within years. Why? Don't know, maybe the US had a better President? I know for sure however, that they did not sit on the money they had at their disposal while there was not electicity and water available...
Both coutries did not have any important ressources like Oil on their own by the way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true, and simply naive. Why do you think many countries encourage foreign companies to invest in their country's economy by building factories, etc there? Tax revenue, as well as employment. Giving a nation contracts that it can't fulfill because of lack of human resources won't do anything, just delay the rebuilding. To be honest, the quickest way to do stuff is to rebuild it for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course. sure. Go tell that anybody involved in developmet politics and he will die loughing before your feet. Then we'll again talk about being naive...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's put it this way. After the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, would you prefer for aid organizations to give the Sri Lankan government their monetary contributions and said, "go, i wish you well." No! The aid organizations already have the manpower and the supplies to help out immediately, instead of trying for a theoretical "natives gain the 'most'' (which really isn't the most anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tell you something about Sri Lanka and the other parts. In Germany, there are about 300million Euro being collected I dont know the number right now. does not matter. That is public aid only, not including the governmental aid.
Now, after several weeks, the aid organisations recommended not to spend any more money, as the bad situation there does not allow transportation of all the supplys and they rot in the sun at the airport where they were transported in.
Then, you can go on and write about 60 to 80 % of the money off since it goes down the drain of corruption and bureocracy. Thats partly because many of these "aid organisation" are dubious, the big ones being simply slothy and inefficient.
To push in the cash will bring nothing. It is a waste of money. The only thing you can do is: go there, take the money with you, press it into the hand of the apporiate person and overwatch him doing good with it.
The same thing goes for Iraq. Or Afghanistan.
You must allocate the fundings, then you must allocate the work to the people and you must overwatch the progress. Ony these three aspects in combination will do the trick. Precise, quick and unbureocratic allocation of money, local work, supervision by experts.
You cant go on an build some plants for them. Thats not going to work. Never did.
Also, if you ever want Iraqi economy to be truly independent and self sufficien, you must strengthen it now. You can only do so by gicing them contracts. If you do not do this, Iraq will become a third world country exporting raw matrials until they are depleted. As soon as this happens the country is basically dead.
darn...its 2:40 CET, im tired and I have to go to work tomorrow. You can keep any spelling errors you find.
I find your claims to be dubious. Back up your statements that aid organizations are inefficient - and compare that with government efficiency. It's true that there isn't any good way to send massive amounts of relief flooding into Sri Lanka, at the moment, but let me assure you that giving money to the government directly would do absolute jack squat better, and in many cases be extremely worse. Read about all the times the IMF/World Bank has bailed out third world countries on promises of reform, only to have their governments syphon off large portions of the funds. With aid organizations, you know how much of their donations goes to management, overhead, advertising, whatever, because at least here they're required to disclose it by law. And if you doubt that, then give me a second so I can break out the tinfoil with you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->at the moment, but let me assure you that giving money to the government directly would do absolute jack squat better, and in many cases be extremely worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I stated, you have to overwatch the prossess personall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back up your statements that aid organizations are inefficient <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'l take some time, im at work and my week is going to be hard. Lets just say for the moment, I have kept in memory some big scandals about the red cross an other Aid Organisations. They are buissness like everythign else, and thus, some people earn more that others.
EDIT WHY LORD WHY? I replied to the first part of your post in full, with rebuttal for each point, and its gone in the click of a button. Curse you forums! That took me forever to type. I'll do it again tomorrow I guess <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It states nothing about the condition of Iraqs oil industry, but of its state of development. That roughly means how much production capability is available compared to the resources available. It is only stating that Saddam was trying to achieve a significant increase in production capabilities, to gain an advantage over his competitors, but failed due to the Iraq/Iran war in the first place, the conflict with around Kuwait and the embargo in the second place, taking effect until the present day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how is this relevant to the current management to the Iraqi oil? The system has been degrading for nearly 30 years now. All that I care about is how they are going returning it to prewar levels, at which point I will consider it an unmigitated success. They havent done so yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power. Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, its nothing I wouldnt expect - an evil man in a corner is an ugly thing. But we are still discussing the Iraqi oil situation in terms that have no relevance to the two things that concern me: oil situation prewar, oil situation postwar.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo. Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Low taxation for rich supporters is corruption? You do realise that lowering taxes for the wealthy is a tried and tested method for reinvigorating the economy and driving economic growth?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Oil industry was developing rapidly due to the first 5 years plan long before any war broke out. The economical development was positive and the standard of living for the Iraqi people ( unless not politically opposing) was very high. Iraq was on its way to become the most important power in the region. Those were the glory days you mention. The days of Saddam….<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that - any honest interview with an Iraqi almost always includes wishful harking back to the 70's. But those times are gone, those production levels are long past, and the industry has degraded significantly. That is why you discussing high output and development in the 70's is complete irrelevant. I also find it questionable that you make insinuations to the effect of "Saddam isnt really that bad, he just got the wrong end of the US foreign policy stick".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil industry was not going a bad way before the US showed up. Even after the Iran war, it almost sustained the pre-war level. The second five year development plan caused the industry to recover and reach 3.5 barrel/day It was damadged by war, but a second development plan was underway, yet interrupted by desert storm.
Here we go. Still quite good export rates after the war. Yet, the economy was severely damaged. At that point, Saddam was searching for a compensation for his losses in the war, and his eye fell on Kuwait<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, the US may have supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, but those two nations have hated each other for a very long time and continue to do so. Its not like he would never have considered it without US imput. Egging a man on, and actually forcing him to fight are two completely different things. Egging him on was a bad idea, but lets not just lump the blame on the US as seems to be the trend here. Again, irrelevant to the current situation of restoring oil to prewar levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I personally have not much info about the Oil for food program, as it did never really cought my attention. If you have some detail I would be glad to read. The article states: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2111195/' target='_blank'>Slate MSN</a> has probably the most lenient view on the UN as far as the Oil for Food scandal goes, but they still cover the problem well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? They didnt have to choose between the Saudi's or Saddam. They already had oil contracts with Kuwait, the Saudi's weren't attacking anyone. It wasnt 50 50 who do we attack, it was defending American oil interests and regional stability by throwing Saddam out. Over a quarter of a million Middle Eastern troops joined in on the venture. Your choice did not exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living. If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain. The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today. Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The kings butt didnt get stung - he had heaps of ways around the oil for food program. But now he had an excuse to carry on with some economic warfare against those in his country that didnt quite agree. The OFF program was specifically designed to prevent the peasants feeling the pain, and it failed miserably at that because of corruption within the UN.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is after 25 years of US foreign politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I cannot express just how little I care about these 25 years of US foreign politics. Bush has stated, as shown in my sig, that for over 25 years the US has been getting it wrong. You also make the mistake of simply declaring or insinuating that the blame lies solely with the Americans, as if everything would have been peachy without those dirty interfering yankees.
The only reason to refer to 25 years of previous American politics is to somehow learn from it. You are dredging it up here when it has no relation or bearing upon the subject matter, and as such I am convinced you are not seeking to educate, but seeking to hurl mud. Roosevelt encountered you and your kind, and had this little piece for them:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
That sums up, for me, the entire left wing that bitterly opposed the Iraq liberation, and now whines likes schoolgirls that everything isnt perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here you see the program was actually used to improve the standard of living. Well understandable, since Saddam was struggling for support to remain in power. The plan to bleed him out backfired because Saddam allocated supplies to the civilians and successfully blamed the US for the poverty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. So wrong. It wasnt used to that effect - that was the stated aim of the project, not the result. Here we see the way you manipulate information to present Saddam in a positive light, and the Americans in a negative light. You have absolutely no idea what was involved in the Oil for Food program, as was clearly demonstrated by your reply, but that didnt slow you for a second - and you wonder why I called your credibility into question? The country had been going to hell ever since the 80's when the Iran war started, then the thrashing Saddam recieved over Kuwait made things pretty bad. However, he managed to crush the Shi'ite revolution, and was firmly established in Iraq. However, the sanctions and embargo's for so called "dual use" items that had been put on Iraq before the first Gulf War stayed. These sanctions were put in place by the international community with support from the rest of the Middle East, which had provided nearly a quarter of a million troops to throw Saddam out of Kuwait, and wanted to see him leashed.
These sanctions continued up until somewhere in 1996 when a report was released showing that the banning of many medicine and food imports was having a dramatic impact on the population, and Saddam was using shortages created by the embargos to eliminate his middle class enemies. So the UN proposed the Oil For Food program whereby Saddam could sell oil to certain countries, and in return the UN would give him food and medicine. Saddam had been finding ways around the embargos for a while now, but the Oil for Food program was just one more way of geting around, and lets face it, the UN isnt know for its invulnerability to corruption. So he rorted the hell out of the program, and while it did help some Iraqi's, the clear benefactor was Saddam, who made billions from the scam.
No one tried to bleed Saddam out, they just didnt want him to buy anything that could be used for another military strike. The US and the international community didnt want the Iraqi's to suffer for their leader, so tried to find away around. They made the mistake of using the United Nations, and the inevitable corruption ruined it.
This stands in direct contrast to your claims made above. You claimed that Saddam allocated resources to his civilians, and then blamed the Americans for poverty. I am quite confident that not only are you wrong, but that you didnt know it was true either, it just sounded like a plausible explanation and you threw it up in Saddam's defence anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here you show that you lack knowledge about the region. Fuel is cheap in Middle Eastern countries. Even in countries that do not have extensive oil reserves like Egypt, fuel and cars are cheap like hell. They buy old models which usually take their way from Europe over the Eastern European countries and several owners to the middle east. Egypt is a relatively poor country, yet the people have cars en masse and driving around in the tourists centres all day and night serving as taxis for tourist too lazy to walk to the beach. To acquire a car is for most people a necessity, since there are few public means of transportation. The ones who cannot afford one on their own drive in groups. Since years, no cars had been imported to Iraq. The need for the must be dire. In all intents and purposes, a car is a Mr Everybody’s commodity in the area, but you can assume that during the embargo, fuel was mainly distributed to the military and the few privileged. Besides you need to replace military vehicles destroyed during the war, since the new police and military forces must me mobile. That’s the infamous Third World police unit. A truck and 3 Kalashnikovs.
But lets have a closer look.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here, I demonstrate that not only is my knowledge about the region sound, but that you are capable of proving my point in your rebuttal. I argued that increased use of fuel by the domestic sector pointed to an increase in economic activity. You argued, entertainingly too might I add, that the Iraqi's merely went out and bought a whole stack of cars after Saddam fell, and because they're old cars, they guzzle fuel. But then you destroy your arguement by using the Egypt example, pointing out that fuel use there is high because they all drive cars as taxis. <b>A taxi is a domestic, revenue generating service</b>, it a part of the economy. These Iraqi's arent buying cheap cars and then driving around the desert like yahoo's, they, like the Egyptians, buy them and use them for financial reasons. Iraqi's are not crazy, nor are they rich. They might have cheap oil and cheap cars, but they dont spend all day racing each other and visiting their neighbours 600km away. Beggars and jobless men dont drive cars around willy nilly. I stand on what I consider a very solid point - the increased demand on fuel in the domestic sector points to economic growth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In The BRD (Republic of Germany), on one day approximately 17187500 liters of fuel are burnt by civil vehicles ONLY. That was 1989. Since 1990, roughly <b>8 cars every minute </b>were added to that huge amount of consumers. In Iraq, we speak about totals that are so insignificant in comparison. In addition to that, you must divide the total consumption between demands of Iraqi law enforcement and utility equipment. Iraq has no nuclear plants. They have no coal. Their energy production supposedly is based of fuel plants, so consider that fuel is needed to generate that bit of energy which is available.
So do not make assumptions about the “drastically increasing market” unless you understand the whereabouts of the numbers provided.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did you type this? This has absolutely no relevance to anything I have said. Law enforcement vehicles have always existed in Iraq, utilities have always existed, fuel has always been used to generate power. It was like this before the war, why should it be any different now? Are you trying to claim that suddenly I'm supposed to assume that ballooning oil demand has to be attributed to something other than the economic sector?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I had acted like you accuse me I had edited that part and not provided a link. Please cut your little efforts to undermine my credibility. Lets go into that particular paragraph, and by the way we take into account some of those preceding it…<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You provided a link, and a whole stack of quotes to support your viewpoint, but amazingly left out everything that didnt quite fit with your "Americans are teh evil" viewpoint. If I give you an article, I bite the bullet and take care to point out where it disagrees with me, just so people dont think I'm trying to play both ends against the middle.
However, quoting the paragraph preceeding the paragraph above isnt going to save you here. There is no relation between the two. That has no bearing on what that article plainly stated - the "its a war for oil" is myth. Your best hope is to claim thats merely their opinion, but never the less it is there, in black and white, in an article you are using to support your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you see the initial plans proposed to install an international team to overview and direct the reconstruction efford. The plan included Iraqi advisers to participate. It would have made sense, since they know the country, know the people, and it would give the Iraqis confidence that their interrets are properly represented. However, it was decided to keep it in US and British hands. Subsequently, the demands for transparency and control over the allocated funding were not met. That is where every revenue officer will start smelling fishes. There is where the Anti-American opposition in Iraq had a target. It was simply stupid. It could have been avoided. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here you make the leap the writers of the article implied by couldnt articulate. The original plan was abandoned, and a set of regulations was set up to ensure that the American and British officials maintained transparency. These transparency regulations were not <b>fully</b> met. So these conditions were met up to a point, but not to the point these guys would like - I would really, really like to know exactly what about these regulations that they thought werent followed completely up to par. But unfortunately they do not elaborate, which makes me relatively confident that there are no shocking and widespread breachs of protocol here, no rampant rorting and backdoor deals, just regulations they thought werent followed stringently enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These two paragraphs, if you interpret them correctly, do not take any position towards Bushs motivations. (So at least is my opinion) It states that conservative think tanks have focused around reestablishment of Iraqi oil industry (more or less realistically) and that US officials did talk openly about that matter and studies were made. That is all and everything the article states. It is scientific, its not taking sides. The highlighted sentence it the origin of the “myth” they author is referring to. He is taking this from the distance necessary for an objective analyst.
All the paragraph says is, that in fact theoretical discussions about a post-Saddam Iraq were numerous, and that this fact has inspired theories about Bushs intentions. That is true. You can decide for yourself whether those “map exercises” were purely academically or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The highlighted sentence is indeed the origin of the myth the author is referring to, and that myth, as you highlighted, is the public conception that this is a war for oil. I cant help but see this as an advantage point to me - prewar debate promulgated the myth that this was a war for oil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime? I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt say that there were no security problems, I said that the idea that security is non existant is garbage. Clearly the US has had, and continues to have, problems with terrorists and criminals, but you make it sound as if they are overwhelmed and completely unable to function, which just isnt the case. Security isnt a disaster in Iraq, but its a big problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of, it was 16 million litres per day, not 15. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are of course completely right. The Iraqi oil sector is operating at 75% efficency compared to prewar, not 80%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, there’s a small tad of difference you did not seem to notice, so let’s have a look into the tiny little bit of info you did not mention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who finds it? Who wants a cookie? No? I give you a hint:
3.8 million BARREL/day from before the Iran war, or 3.5 million BARREL/day before the embargo is a teeny tiny bit more that 20million LITERS/ a day One Barrel is approximately 160 litres. Now take your calculator… 3.5 million barrel would give us 560 million litres PER DAY. Now compare that to your astonishing, whopping, admirable 16 million litres/day since 13 years.
Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years. Great job! Mission accomplished. .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irrelevant. The lot. I dont care what they could handle before a few months before the Iraq war. I am debating about prewar and afterwar, nothing else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The looting was rampant insurgency or no. To claim that they wasted it seems to be arguing from a position of ignorance. The oil industry was a priority, and your own article claims the CPA focused on it throughout 2003. They failed to achieve their goal, as you bolded in your quote - but the article doesnt detail why they failed or who is to blame. Definately not good though, you are correct there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question. Really. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I state - you cannot give oil industry rebuilding contracts to non existant companies with non existant professionals and non existant equipment. The oil professionals in Iraq jumped ship a long time ago, machinery was run down and spare parts extremely limited. The fact is that if they could have handed the contracts to Iraqi's, they would have. They didnt because there wasnt a plethora of Iraqi companies lining up. You know how many lesbian strippers we have working at my surgery? Not many. Is that because a) there are millions of lesbian strippers lining up daily for a job but my employer is bigotted and refuses to hire them or b) because there aint that many lesbian strippers looking for a job in the vet industry? Your article cleverly implied that the Americans were withholding contracts from begging Iraqi's, and you fell for it headfirst.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the <span style='color:orange'>US authorities used <b>Iraqi oil revenueto </b>fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities.</span> A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AHA. Lookie what we have here. Its the IRW - everybody wave to Mr George Soros, the man who said that Bush reminded him of the Nazi's, and that defeating him in the past election was the most important issuing facing the world. Surely this 100% Soros funded thinktank focusing on Iraqi Revenue will avoid bias while studying the guilty, money grubbing CPA barstards. But alas, US depravity knows no bounds, and IRW is sorry to report that transparency is non existant, all the money is being given to the US while the Iraqi's starve, and the sky is indeed falling.
But good Lord I'm glad you brought this to my attention, the hilarity starts now. <a href='http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/092404.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a> is the beginning. I wondered were your article was sourcing its information on the transgressions and errors of the CPA, and now I know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The CPA consistently failed to be transparent by not releasing the names of companies awarded contracts paid for with Iraqi funds. Although information was available about the recipients of U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts, until recently, there was no publicly available information about which companies were being paid with Iraqi oil revenues. This information was finally made available in an appendix released by the CPA-IG in August 2004, which provides information about the use of Iraqi funds to pay contracts valued at more than $5 million.8 That chart is reproduced in Appendix 1 of this report.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we discover those massive transparency breaches CEES had uncovered - the Americans withheld for, gasp, several months before releasing the names of the companies being paid with Iraqi money. Is it transparency? Not really - but neither is it a cloak and dagger affair like they attempted to paint it. The rest of the report is a sledging of everything the US and Iraqi authorities attempt
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Next on, go for the numbers. 74% percent of IRAQI oil revenues was allocated in form of contracts to US companies 85% total for US and British companies, rendering 11% for British firms total. Said 2% for Iraqi firms.
That leaves 13% total for reconstruction purposes. That means, of the 1.5 bn dollars available of Iraqi oil revenues, 195 mn dollars for reconstruction purposes during the first 13 months after the war. (hope I didn’t ditch a null…) That’s really astonishing. And a bit puzzling, considering that…<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not puzzling at all, they just confused you. There was 1.5 billion dollars made available for private reconstruction efforts. Of that 1.5 billion, which is small potatoes really in the Iraqi economy, it was explaining the breakdown of who got what. The Iraqi private firms didnt get much - but I explained why above. I deny their claim that the US withheld money from Iraqi authorities. In reading their IRW report, I found it entertaining that the "killer" blows were all unsourced. Some of what they reported about sloppy financial management must have had some basis in truth, but most revealing was that no where was it claimed that the American's were stealing money from the Iraqi's, oil money or otherwise. It may have complained about how it was handled, security and reporting measures, but at no stage was it suggested that the US were pillaging.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the [color =orange]$18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid. [/color]
So there were 18.4 billion Dollars of US funds allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction. Why did they not use it then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Are they serious? Do they have the slightest clue how contracts are allocated? You dont take 18.4 billion dollars, hurl it into the air and watch companies scurrying around fixing things. Spending 1.5 billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction money was always going to be a little bit simpler than spending almost 13 times that amount, and as of September 8th 2004 over 1 billion dollars of that 18.4 billion had already been spent, and 100 million more of that money was being spent every week. First they spent the Iraqi money, then they started spending their own. Whats wrong with that? Both are going to be used up eventually - these people are nothing but whiners, seeking every nitty gritty thing they can to complain about. There were reallocations of that money towards increased security to be honest, but over 1/3 still remained earmarked for water facilities and electricity, and was and is being spent at a rate comensurate with the demand from companies willing to brave the security concerns and reconstruct.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahaaa. Finally after a whole year! More that 12 moth, they wasted time which was essential. Twelve month.<i> Before</i> the insurgency started!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This didnt strike you as a little strange? The sole source of income in Iraq, the very basis of its economy, supposedly the main reason for the war according to the tinfoil hat brigade and the CPA starved it of funds for an entire year? Unless you consider the US stark, raving lunatics, you'd have to smell something fishy here. First off, the CPA deliberately achieved a surplus because they needed cash with which to float the following budget. You cannot spend all your money, then hand over the job to the Iraqi's and leave them nothing to work with. They might have money allocated to them from the government, but that money is generated throughout the year, and thus the money is not available at the beginning of the year, hence the surplus to enable the Iraqi's to spend at the start of the year.
Second, the funding for the Iraqi oil ministry was done off budget. This was cleverly concealed in a very secret place where few can find it. Luckily - Marine01 is a l33t haxor and hacked his way to the <a href='http://www.iraqcoalition.org/budget/2003budget.pdf' target='_blank'>CPA website displaying the 2003 budget</a>, and lo, we discover that the Iraqi oil ministry was to be funded "Operational and capital expenditure to be funded through extra realised revenues. Over $1 billion of capital expenditure to be funded off-budget."
I would have thought the idea that the US simply refused to fund the Iraq Oil ministry would have been clearly insane - but not to everyone obviously. I hope thats cleared that up. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now, before you start on US aid that’s paid, so its not bad that they get money out of Iraq’s economy, I like to remind you of the income part a bit earlier. 3.5 nm barrel a day before Desert storm. Since 13 years.
That means we have roughly 4750 days under embargo, which means 16625 million barrel of projected extraction lost total during the last 13 years Let’s take an price of lets say 35 USD per barrel
That brings us to a total of 581875 million UDS or 581 billion of total income lost since Desert storm.
For the purpose of completeness and to prevent you from further accusing me of “”left wing fact manipulation” (which is really amusing since I’m a conservative voter…)
Oil for food was set up late 1996, so lets give them whole 9 years. 9 years of 16 million litres/d, that makes up on: 3285 days for 16 million litres per day make up on: 52.560 million litres. Transferred to barrels, (divide by 160) that would be about 328.5 million barrel total since `96 Lets take our 35 USD per barrel (which is steeply low imho) This leads us to a round up of 11500 million Dollars income due to Oil for Food.
11.2 billion. Less than the amount the US have allocated as additional funding for reconstruction purposes . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea why you brought this up. Again I cant see the relevance. I did get a chuckle out of the conservative voter bit, and I found it a little weird that you claimed that 11.2 billion was less than the 18.4 billion the US allocated to reconstruction - but we can discuss this when you explain to me why this is relevant at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, as we see it was too late. You pointed out at several occasions in the past, that you do not understand the insurgents motivation. Here you have it on one page. One year. One whole year, the US did nothing but stick their fingers in their noses. Why they did not allocate the funding is up to your own imagination, I don’t care honestly, however, the situation was stagnant for 12 long months, in which the humanitarian situation was more than bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm telling you that claim is patently insane, and I want more proof then just their word on it. I'm not going to leave it to my imagination - I need to see solid figures demonstrating that the US could spend money, and simply didnt, despite no insurgency standing in their way, and that that money was needed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was failure, like the first weeks in Baghdad when the US did fail to provide civil protection. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? The first weeks of fall of Baghdad went fine. You realise that in military invasions, merely preventing your own troops from looting is a major achievement, much less preventing the civilian population from looting. This is one of those complaints that looks good on the surface but becomes inane upon close inspection. Establishing law and order immediately upon entering a large, hostile city like Baghdad shouldnt have even been expected. You remember that big disaster, with up to 200,000 items looted from Baghdad Museum? Grand total lost items? 17. The rest had been moved by the curators before the war started for security. Yeah, looting was a <b>huge</b> problem, how silly of those Americans for not stopping it immediately. Everyone knows that once you take the city, you just throw on a white MP armband and saunter around laying down the long arm of the law on looters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those mistakes fed the insurgency until it grew to a point where it broke out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhhhh - no. Thats a common misconception by the vast majority of leftists who still believe that there is rational, logical reasons behind the insurgent mind, that they only strike because they have suffered personal loss, that they are only responding in violence because they hope for a better future etc. And its wrong. As demonstrated by an American reporter who actually went to Iraq, who talked to people in the Sunni Triangle:
<a href='http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Index/Week-Dec_13-19_2004.html' target='_blank'>Journey into the Soul of Iraq</a>
Its on the right hand side, a five part series - I think you'll find it enlightening.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was a catastrophic mistake to allocate money to US firms, instead of Iraqi corporations and Iraqi government. Political leaders and opinion makers had facts to present and enough evidence for their intention, to show off the US as exploiting imperialists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. You dont have to create an impression when every Iraqi from a two year old upwards firmly believed prior to the war that this was going to be an American occupation where the Great Satan was going to rape their resources and steal their oil. The Arab street does not rely on facts and concrete evidence - it has wild conspiracy (Its the Jews!!) and anger (The Americans have shamed my country!) to drive them, along with the whole loss of stature (We Sunni's used to be top of the pile!) to drive them along. Notice in his little 90 minute rant earlier this month that Zarqui (sp argh) targetted the Shi'ites for cooperating with the Americans? Have you heard from al'Sadr, the militant shi'ite cleric for a while? He's piped down because its becoming increasingly clear that the insurgency is no longer targetting just Americans, it is also targetting Shi'ites, because the radical Sunni's that constitute the bulk of the terrorists realise those guys are going to win the election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like since the debate, or earlier debates started, you failed to understand my point, that I merely try to analyse the situation and make my assumptions based upon. I try to see the failures and the reasons. Who wins in the end does not really matter for me (except its nice to be right, like in the WMD debate…. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your analysis is wrong - it is fundamentally flawed because it is underlined with 100% hatred and suspicion of the US, and you will oppose them and anything they do, no matter what their aims are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. <span style='color:orange'> In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully. </span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can try to stop smoking, but unless you actually DO, you still buy cigarettes. When they want to avoid being accused fishy practices, they should achieve their goals of transparency. You know its not that difficult to allocate money in an occupied nation. Its easy. You can do as you like. So when you say, that oil pump gets so much, and that one so much, and they get it. Ok? Its not really hard to do because there are no bureaucrats and oppositions that delay actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already dealt with this. Their "transparency" complaints were rediculous. They got their transparency, they just didnt get it <b>now</b>. It is that style of reporting that makes me suspicious of their more outlandish claims, especially the US oil funding one. What looks on the surface to be incredibly damaging and suspicious turns out to be inane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, Powell somehow reminded me of the Iraqi information minister trying to convince himself that its true what he’s talking there…poor fella. No really, it was annoying. WMD here, WMD there. WMD...did I tell you about the WMD by the way? I almost stopped watching the news as I could not hear it anymore....
I have an acquaintance who is in directly and relatively deeply involved in politics of one of the federal states of Germany. He is thus directly in contact with European politics and has thus the opportunity to chat with people that travel a lot and meet important other people. One of them is in the EU foreign ministry. That one has to tell much good about Mr, Powell , as he shall be an honest and credible man. Thus, Powell’s claims of the actual existence of the WMD gave the story a touch of truth, which would not have been there without him. I did not count much for this, as I believed Powell, as a seasoned Military officer was doing his duty whether its right or wrong. I still do not know if he was convinced himself or not, that has to be decided by the Historians, however, I now understand that he is actually an honest man, since his retirement speaks much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So.. whats your point? Powell was an honest man, but GWB and the rest of his dirty neocons were lying through their teeth? Face it - the entire administration was convinced he had them, their intelligence agencies were convinced he had them, the British intelligence agencies were convinced he had them, the Australian intelligence were convinced he had them, the French intelligence were convinced he had them, the German intelligence were convinced he had them, the only service unconvinced was Russian intelligence. Everyone who should have been listened to thought he had them. The Bush administration did not lie. They were very, very, very wrong. But it wasnt lying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you should PM it to me, I would be interested. All I can say is, that you are wrong when you put me into a sceme. I rethink my position regularly based on information acquire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I left that comment there simply to let you know I had been unworthy - I consider it lame to say something vidictive, then simply remove it before the offended party has a chance to observe it, it reminds me of schoolgirls saying horrible things about each other behind each others backs. I said something unworthy, and I took it back before you could see it, but felt it wouldn't be fair that my unworthy remark should disappear unnoted by the victim. So I'd rather leave it with you knowing I'd been nasty - without my nastyness actually being aired again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, in closure I want to express my personal point of view on the matter at hand. It looks to me like the US have bitten off more than they can chew. Not direcly in military matters, but in economical.
Their anticipations of Iraqs economy were bloody wrong and their reconstruction efford will never go as planned. It has already startet so horribly and misorganized, that it can hardly come worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They didnt expect it, they will handle it. Something I have noticed as well from my own experience, is that when a man is put in a corner, he manages. The Americans have always been a resourceful mob, and so long as the population doesnt pull the plug, I have every confidence in the US ability to set the Iraqi people on the road to democracy and keep them their. Basically, they have to balls to make it happen, and they are willing to suffer and pay for it the whole way - everything I could hope for from the USA.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can, as I said before, tell from own experience, that this reconstruction will take years and cost mega. Even without fighting in the country. Also, If not finally mesures are taken to actually distribute the contracts to Iraqi companies mainly, the Industry will not really recover. All you will achieve is that more oil is flowing, however, it will not flow into Iraqs pockets.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cost, yes. Long time, yes. Will it be done? Yes. The Iraqi industry you speak of doesnt exist yet. The industry that does exist is being engaged. The budget for the Iraqi government is comprised mainly upon the money generated from oil exports. The Iraqi's will see their oil again in the form of power grids, schools, hospitals, clean water - it will just take time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, it must be determined how the New Government will handle the prizes. One possibility might be, that an US supported Iraq would leave OPEC and start selling off oil at competing prizes, which would certainly lead to much lower overall oil prizes, since OPEC monopoly would be damadged.
Another prospective is, that the insurgency will go on and on, forcing the US to maintain their presence, which means a continiung finacial disaster for the US. The only one profiting would be the arms industry, but since taxiation is neglectible atm..... This scenario could result in a situation similar to vietnam, where finally the public support for the US government and military brakes down and the president is eventually forced to find a way out.
Then, well, either Iraq sinks into chaos and civil war (most likely) or a strong leader will emerge and create a sovereing, totalitarian regime. Both variants will most likely involve a fundamentalist touch.
However, such a government has prospects and possibilities. Foreing companies most likely will wait with open arms for contracts and opportunities. They do already. That is, only in case the US do not try to sanction such a regime. In that case, it will be isolated and dry out like Afghanistan under Taliban reign.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have the wrong president. Bush will not back down. He was returned to office with an increased majority because the American people wanted him to finish the job. He will not abandon the country to become a bloody hellhole as so many want him to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>!EDIT! The methods I talk about here are sleep deprivation and the additional methods mentioned in my last post about torture. I do not mean the ones in my description about physical torture. I just do not want any misunderstandings about that. !EDIT!</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay then, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I’ve seen photos of several prisoners standing doggystyle on their fellow detainees. That’s more of your taste?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are referring to pictures from Abu Grahib, then we are talking apples and oranges. What went on their was pointless torture of petty Iraqi criminals. It has nothing to do with US Army interrogation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The methods I described in short are trained to specialised military personnel in all NATO member states. There is an international military school that organizes interrogation seminaries to members of SF units. These methods are trained there. That has been thoroughly discussed recently in Germany because of several reports of recruits that had been touched a bit roughly during their training. Nothing special, but since we have a draft army, some of the recruits had a problem with it. In that context, Germanys participation in interrogation method training was discussed. During that training, all the things I summed up are applied to the participation soldiers. All of them. However, it is regulated to an extent where it is not harmful. It is controlled. Yet, even under simulated circumstances, the trainers had tendencies to exaggerate and even among really hard SF- soldiers many soldiers had felt the need to break off the courses, in isolated cased it even came to the point where the soldiers collapsed. The truth is, that even under simulated circumstances, the interrogators are in great temptation do “overdo it” You say those methods are not used to full extend? Says who? The official orders? The Pentagon statement? Again, I’m not against such training as it is necessary to prepare soldiers to what they can experience, and I understand the necessity to apply enough pressure on resilient enemies. With this I want to explain, that the power of an interrogator is often a great temptation to “do it properly”. Even under lab conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the SF get trained to interrogate? And if their interrogation was bad, how would we even know? My article dealt specifically with the guidelines set down for US army interrogators, not German special forces. You are claiming the US is torturing people as part of routine interrogation. I'm claiming that the interrogation does not amount to torture, and any of it that does is an aberation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.prisonexp.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.prisonexp.org/</a> This is a link to an experiment. It was scheduled to last for 14 days. It had to be aborted after 6 days because of severe sings of depressive psychosis’s and various other traumata among the prisoners. Also, it came to violent behaviour among the wardens against the prisoners. That was an experiment. They played a game. They were normal people volunteered for this, and it turned very real, within 6 days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was done in the 70's - they were all taking a lot of whacked out stuff in the 70's. None of the guards had any training at all. The researcher was <b>actually a part of the experiment</b> - on this one fact alone no one will take your research seriously. That is a serious compromise of experimental objectivity - researcher bias is something modern day researchers strive desperately hard to avoid through blind and double blind experiments. This hack actually got involved - he even reports his emotional involvement and excitement. But it gets better - they actually pay the participants for participating. That is considered ethically wrong for modern researchers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It should be clear that we were trying to create a functional simulation of a prison -- not a literal prison. Real male prisoners don't wear dresses, but real male prisoners do feel humiliated and do feel emasculated. Our goal was to produce similar effects quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes. Indeed, as soon as some of our prisoners were put in these uniforms they began to walk and to sit differently, and to hold themselves differently -- more like a woman than like a man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aahahahahahahahah. It gets better. They implement situations not actually found in prisons based around their idea that being in a prison makes you feel emasculated. I am bookmarking this - my psychology lecture would be stunned. And then, on the second day, the prisoners implement a rebellion. The second day. They cant handle being shaved, showered, and called by numbers for a 24 hour period - oh no, they riot. Clearly they had some crazy, crazy kids in on this experiment. At this point, I stopped reading, because my sides hurt. That study hasnt the slightest bearing on reality what so ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are pictures of soldiers posing over a dead body? A freaking dead body? Why do you think he died? Heart attack? You are one of them accusing others of playing down the insurgents crimes and highlight only US deeds, while yourself you try to convince us of their harmless methods. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not standard interrogation - sick abberations of normal policy. Abberations I believe are rare and prosecuted. Just ask Mr Grainer of Grahib fame, who is sitting in a cell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, lets put it this way. Like I mentioned earlier, we had “isolated cases” of young recruits got “tortured” by their drill instructors in order to prepare them for an eventual assignment. That is imho important, however it was not officially intended to be trained to normal recruits. The incidents were not tragic. Simulated kidnapping and being tied up in a ark room for several hours. Things like that. It was declared, this happenings were “isolated cases”. However, looking back into reports from recruits that did claim to be treated improperly in that context over the past decade showed, that Isolated cases happened almost weakly throughout the republic…..It was never ever official policy however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you want me to assume that the worst, which goes against policy, is the norm? The worst only continues to happen when it is not confronted. As my article showed, the US interrogators got their hands tied after Abu Grahib as a reaction to the exposure. It is now a matter of official policy and urgency to ensure that sort of thing doesnt happen again. I believe it will, but I believe it will be rare, and swiftly dealt with.
EDIT2
Here is what I dont understand. I have found multiple articles on the current situation in Iraq referring to the handling of revenue generated from Iraqi oil exports. I cannot reconcile these claims with your articles claim that Iraq is consuming all its own oil, and is actually importing more. Can anyone clear that up for me?
And he keeps coming back <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hard hittin fella. Thumbs up!
Thanks for the Oil for Food Article. I'll read into it as soon I can. I try to continue this, but I currently have many demands on my time. I guess I can come back somewhat around Wednestay.
I'm really enyoing this!
just some quick things that sprung to my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That was done in the 70's - they were all taking a lot of whacked out stuff in the 70's. None of the guards had any training at all. The researcher was actually a part of the experiment - on this one fact alone no one will take your research seriously. That is a serious compromise of experimental objectivity - researcher bias is something modern day researchers strive desperately hard to avoid through blind and double blind experiments. This hack actually got involved - he even reports his emotional involvement and excitement. But it gets better - they actually pay the participants for participating. That is considered ethically wrong for modern researchers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The guards had no training. Yes. But even without training or instruction, they "invented" very effective methods which are used in real prisons and by trained personnel. They took over absolute typical behavior, which was the aim of that experiment. Thus, the experiment was consdered a success.
The researcher was not biased when it comes down to judging the experiments outcome. they were emerged in the psychological dynamics that developed during the experiment. That was part of the experiment and the researchers were, as the reports state, extremely surprised by their own reactions in that situation. That is why the experiment was ended preemtively. The researchers realised their own immersion and that they failed to distinguish between reality and simulation. That does only emphasise the extreme psychological circumstances that occured during these 6 days. Just imagine.... 6 days and these young scientists started to think like prison supervisors. ...
Paying the participants for their participation is perfectly normal. If you engage in such experiments you get a compenstion for your time. Ive done this several times during my studies. Stuff like testing software for edjucational research (stuff like virtual classrooms and such...) Its good money for a few hours of work. (i was young and needed the money <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) Its even practical for medical research to pay volunteers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you want me to assume that the worst, which goes against policy, is the norm? The worst only continues to happen when it is not confronted. As my article showed, the US interrogators got their hands tied after Abu Grahib as a reaction to the exposure. It is now a matter of official policy and urgency to ensure that sort of thing doesnt happen again. I believe it will, but I believe it will be rare, and swiftly dealt with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asume that, when you close a door behind some people and tell them by raising your finger: "don't do anything I would't do myself!" that **** like this happens. Big time.
Some of the Soldiers working in Abu Grahib in the particular cellblock (A1 if I remember correctly) were not engaged in the torure and relieved of their post there because they demanded written orders for this. They did not get any, so they were reassinged to other parts of the prison. The whole issue was brought up by the reports of some of those soldiers. They stirred up the water, information was leaking. The same way, it was brought to public in the particular case I explained we had here in Germany. It was brought to light from inside, and the government was unable to contain it. The same we see in the Abu Grahib incident.
Its always the same. It works that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why would the SF get trained to interrogate? And if their interrogation was bad, how would we even know? My article dealt specifically with the guidelines set down for US army interrogators, not German special forces. You are claiming the US is torturing people as part of routine interrogation. I'm claiming that the interrogation does not amount to torture, and any of it that does is an aberation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SF troopers are trained to resist these methods. They undergo the procedure as part of their training, to be prepared if they get captured behind enemy lines. However, they also are trained to bring these methods to bear themselves. The SF trainign was just an example. The methods are however very widespread.
In the course of our own little "torture scandal" a seasoned german soldier, which is a instructor on that particular field of study, was questioned about the incidents. the discussion was about how hard a regular drafted recruit can be touched by their instructors, and whether or how these recruits should be prepared for a possible captivity and interrogation scenario. The questios about NATO- torture courses and the methods trained therein came up. He testified that these methods do resemble methods used in Abu Grahib. He said that things like he saw on the photos are exactly the same methods he does teach to his students. He has endured such treatment himself as he has participated as "victim" several times during his active military carrear. He did repeat the statements later on as the press aproached him. (His reasons for disclosing these information was, that the treatment on these courses does tend to get out of hand and people frequently get hurt, as the instructors tend to overdo it. His intention was to enforce more control in the process. Just for clarification) I take a look if I still have the article, then I might give you a translation, as it written in german.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is what I dont understand. I have found multiple articles on the current situation in Iraq referring to the handling of revenue generated from Iraqi oil exports. I cannot reconcile these claims with your articles claim that Iraq is consuming all its own oil, and is actually importing more. Can anyone clear that up for me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can. I've just re-read the paragraph and found the bug. The numbers about consumtion refer to <i>petroleum</i> consumption and production. I failed to translate that part correctly and mixed it up during the process of quoting them together.
The current capability of oil production is stated far down in the article in the part of the future prospects. The actual capacity is 2.5 million barrel. that are the numbers from which the oil revenues come which are also summed up in the article.
My fault sorry. I was busy and you can see on the various edits of that post that I had a multitude of things to correct. Never do this under pressure.
Now before you jump up, Saudi Arabia in comparison, is currently producing around 8,5 million/barrel per day, which does not resemble their peak capacity. (thats to maintain stable prices) yet, they suffer from national debt and stagnating economy.
I don't have much time to spellcheck it so bear with me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But how is this relevant to the current management to the Iraqi oil? The system has been degrading for nearly 30 years now. All that I care about is how they are going returning it to prewar levels, at which point I will consider it an unmigitated success. They havent done so yet. [...] Again, its nothing I wouldnt expect - an evil man in a corner is an ugly thing. But we are still discussing the Iraqi oil situation in terms that have no relevance to the two things that concern me: oil situation prewar, oil situation postwar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think we are chasing us around a table here. Lets just sum it up, the economy is rotting since 13 years. That means it is desolated. As I said, We have such a desolated economy to feed on our own and that is going on since 15 years, without really changing anything exept some economic hotspots. The big advantage in Iraq is, that they have a valuable ressource. That is the prospective. However, they are not capable of rebuilding production facilities and increase their capacitiy, not to speak of developing new industries, because it is too dangerous for the investors. No company will risk his money OR the life of its employees in Iraq anytime soon.
No peace, not investors, no investors, no growth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Low taxation for rich supporters is corruption? You do realise that lowering taxes for the wealthy is a tried and tested method for reinvigorating the economy and driving economic growth? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true for economical entities. Like coorporations. You must differ between taxiation for economy and for private persons. When you lower taxiation for a certain group of people, those persons wager their personal influence in your favour. For example, a communist party would favor workers in terms of taxiation, to gain their support.
I hope that clarifies my point, it was just an example, maybe not a good one. Sorry if it was confusing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What? They didnt have to choose between the Saudi's or Saddam. They already had oil contracts with Kuwait, the Saudi's weren't attacking anyone. It wasnt 50 50 who do we attack, it was defending American oil interests and regional stability by throwing Saddam out. Over a quarter of a million Middle Eastern troops joined in on the venture. Your choice did not exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, that was maybe a bit misleading. I'll clarify my statment. The Saudis became worried about Saddams expansionistic behavior after the attack on Kuwait. They feared a scenario where he would turn on Saudi arabia, since the saudis were aware that their military force was not on par with Saddams capabilities. So they informed the US about their concearns. The US and the Saudi monarchy are finacially connected since decades and good buissness partners. Losing Saudi Arabias friendship or was not an option back then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The kings butt didnt get stung - he had heaps of ways around the oil for food program. But now he had an excuse to carry on with some economic warfare against those in his country that didnt quite agree. The OFF program was specifically designed to prevent the peasants feeling the pain, and it failed miserably at that because of corruption within the UN. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats why the saying goes "the peasants feel the pain" I have scimmed your sources, and there is nothing I had not exected. Honestly, that is why I did never had the feeling to go into that program any further.I cannot imagine why you are pounding on it every time. Thats how things work. Financial aid alsways goes throug many hands first and on the way 60%+ simply gets "lost". Perfectly normal. where do you think all that money for the Tzunami region went?
Of course Saddam fed on the program, I really do not know why you are so agitated about that? Mr. Bush blew 40 million dollar on one day for his reelection Party. Why does this not agitate your sense of justice? You are focusing on that particular injustice as it appeals to your detest for the UN. With this, you exhibit the behavior you do so valaintly critizise on your fellow forum posters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No one tried to bleed Saddam out, they just didnt want him to buy anything that could be used for another military strike. The US and the international community didnt want the Iraqi's to suffer for their leader, so tried to find away around. They made the mistake of using the United Nations, and the inevitable corruption ruined it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> what do you think the idea of a blokade is? you know, the that concept is not so new? It's done since some thousand years. Take cuba as one of the recent examples. the Idea was to bleed out the country until the people would revolt against Fidel. Well that old fool proved resilient. Like Saddam. The ones that suffer are the people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This stands in direct contrast to your claims made above. You claimed that Saddam allocated resources to his civilians, and then blamed the Americans for poverty. I am quite confident that not only are you wrong, but that you didnt know it was true either, it just sounded like a plausible explanation and you threw it up in Saddam's defence anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read context of the article That states <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam was able to blame the sanctions for the poverty. He gave his people the most nesseary things to survive, and blamed the Embargo for their poverty. Thus he fed anti-american sentiments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And here, I demonstrate that not only is my knowledge about the region sound, but that you are capable of proving my point in your rebuttal. I argued that increased use of fuel by the domestic sector pointed to an increase in economic activity. You argued, entertainingly too might I add, that the Iraqi's merely went out and bought a whole stack of cars after Saddam fell, and because they're old cars, they guzzle fuel. But then you destroy your arguement by using the Egypt example, pointing out that fuel use there is high because they all drive cars as taxis. A taxi is a domestic, revenue generating service, it a part of the economy. These Iraqi's arent buying cheap cars and then driving around the desert like yahoo's, they, like the Egyptians, buy them and use them for financial reasons. Iraqi's are not crazy, nor are they rich. They might have cheap oil and cheap cars, but they dont spend all day racing each other and visiting their neighbours 600km away. Beggars and jobless men dont drive cars around willy nilly. I stand on what I consider a very solid point - the increased demand on fuel in the domestic sector points to economic growth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Egypt example was to emphasise the normality a car represents in the middle east and how cheap they are to aquire and maintain.
So in regard of your argumentation, yes, basically they are economical factors. They would fit into the range of buissness investments if you want. That taxi example however fits the purpose better than you might think on second thought. These taxi "enterprises" are maintained because of the poverty which is visible everywhere in Egypt. They are offering their services for a few bucks. That is hardly considerable as "buisness". It's another form of beggary, like carying your luggage from the airport terminal to your shuttle bus. I don't even know if its officially legal. This emphasises the cheapness of petroleum products. That is where I wanted to go. I merely tried to explain that a few cars and more fuel thats burnt does not relemble soemthing worth calling economical groth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You provided a link, and a whole stack of quotes to support your viewpoint, but amazingly left out everything that didnt quite fit with your "Americans are teh evil" viewpoint. If I give you an article, I bite the bullet and take care to point out where it disagrees with me, just so people dont think I'm trying to play both ends against the middle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Sir. I posted the parts containing the information I wanted to express, since I did not intent to write much about it myself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, quoting the paragraph preceeding the paragraph above isnt going to save you here. There is no relation between the two. That has no bearing on what that article plainly stated - the "its a war for oil" is myth. Your best hope is to claim thats merely their opinion, but never the less it is there, in black and white, in an article you are using to support your argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lets look at it again: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='color:orange'>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war, even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong. Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms.</span> In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country.
<span style='color:orange'>Despite these myths</span>, which received wide publicity and acceptance because of the quick military victory, the US authorities did not alter overall oil policy. The CPA focused on the rehabilitation of the industry to bring it back to the pre-war production level of 2.8mn b/d on the first anniversary of the war in April 2004. This program has been delayed and its goal will not be met by the end of the year. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The highlited part above are the myths the author refers to. He is talking about the public opinion which went on to decay into specualtions futher and further. Nevertheless, the Author describes the sources of the "myths".
Here, you see one of your "myths".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And here you make the leap the writers of the article implied by couldnt articulate. The original plan was abandoned, and a set of regulations was set up to ensure that the American and British officials maintained transparency. These transparency regulations were not fully met. So these conditions were met up to a point, but not to the point these guys would like - I would really, really like to know exactly what about these regulations that they thought werent followed completely up to par. But unfortunately they do not elaborate, which makes me relatively confident that there are no shocking and widespread breachs of protocol here, no rampant rorting and backdoor deals, just regulations they thought werent followed stringently enough. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there was a plan, to set up a team, includiong Iraqis. That would have made sense. Why did the not do so? Whether it was intentional or just plain stupidity, it had an impact on the people. Those news are spreding fast adn the US are watched closely and sceptically. Such misleading descidions are counterproductive. In the very least, it was absolutely incomtetent management. As for the transparency: You are obviously not unintelligent. I am sure you have encoutered similar situations in economical scandals all over the world several hunderd times in your lifetime. Why should it be different in this very particular case? Whatever happened, the point here is, that it further destroyed US cedibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I didnt say that there were no security problems, I said that the idea that security is non existant is garbage. Clearly the US has had, and continues to have, problems with terrorists and criminals, but you make it sound as if they are overwhelmed and completely unable to function, which just isnt the case. Security isnt a disaster in Iraq, but its a big problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is bad enough to keep investors away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The looting was rampant insurgency or no. To claim that they wasted it seems to be arguing from a position of ignorance. The oil industry was a priority, and your own article claims the CPA focused on it throughout 2003. They failed to achieve their goal, as you bolded in your quote - but the article doesnt detail why they failed or who is to blame. Definately not good though, you are correct there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why they fail is easy, they did not invest the money at their disposal For whatever reson there is. I really don't know. It makes no sesnse. I'm inclined to blame it on bad management.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Again I state - you cannot give oil industry rebuilding contracts to non existant companies with non existant professionals and non existant equipment. The oil professionals in Iraq jumped ship a long time ago, machinery was run down and spare parts extremely limited. The fact is that if they could have handed the contracts to Iraqi's, they would have. They didnt because there wasnt a plethora of Iraqi companies lining up. You know how many lesbian strippers we have working at my surgery? Not many. Is that because a) there are millions of lesbian strippers lining up daily for a job but my employer is bigotted and refuses to hire them or b) because there aint that many lesbian strippers looking for a job in the vet industry? Your article cleverly implied that the Americans were withholding contracts from begging Iraqi's, and you fell for it headfirst. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, nice allegory. How did you get on the lesbos? Now. really. Yes, many experts "jumped ship". The article states: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They exiled either because they were not satisfied with their standard or living or because they were not able to fulfill Saddams expectations. Can't really blame them, can you? Why did people go to the new world? Or to Australia? Just because it fits your point of view, exilants and refugees fleeing from your brutal regime (which you never fail to emphasis), suddenly become greedy deserters. Again, this is a behafior you frequently blame others for on these boards.
Could it be possible that these exialants would return to Iraq when they would been offered their old positions? As for the nonexistent companies. They are desolate. Agreed. But they are there. They have personnel, they have experience, they speak the darn language. When you intent to rebuild a nations industry, or develop one in the first place, you must do so by helping them in doing it themselves. It must be done by their own economy's efford, by their own people. You cannot argue this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> AHA. Lookie what we have here. Its the IRW - everybody wave to Mr George Soros, the man who said that Bush reminded him of the Nazi's, and that defeating him in the past election was the most important issuing facing the world. Surely this 100% Soros funded thinktank focusing on Iraqi Revenue will avoid bias while studying the guilty, money grubbing CPA barstards. But alas, US depravity knows no bounds, and IRW is sorry to report that transparency is non existant, all the money is being given to the US while the Iraqi's starve, and the sky is indeed falling. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There something about questioning sources in the forum rules. They are not my sources by the way, they are sources of the MEES, which is well established and renown for its accuracy. When the stockmarkets can trust em its certainly good enough for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But good Lord I'm glad you brought this to my attention, the hilarity starts now. here is the beginning. I wondered were your article was sourcing its information on the transgressions and errors of the CPA, and now I know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The CPA consistently failed to be transparent by not releasing the names of companies awarded contracts paid for with Iraqi funds. Although information was available about the recipients of U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts, until recently, there was no publicly available information about which companies were being paid with Iraqi oil revenues. This information was finally made available in an appendix released by the CPA-IG in August 2004, which provides information about the use of Iraqi funds to pay contracts valued at more than $5 million.8 That chart is reproduced in Appendix 1 of this report. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here we discover those massive transparency breaches CEES had uncovered - the Americans withheld for, gasp, several months before releasing the names of the companies being paid with Iraqi money. Is it transparency? Not really - but neither is it a cloak and dagger affair like they attempted to paint it. The rest of the report is a sledging of everything the US and Iraqi authorities attempt <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are getting desperate. The same word "transparency" flashing up twice does not nessesarily imply that its automatically a hypertext link ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, <span style='color:orange'>and as the auditors later showed </span>, these measures were not implemented fully. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They checked their books. Thats what it refers to. Not telling who gets the contracts is another story, one that is strange enough on its own. Obviously, that particular lack of transparency was not caused by the difficult circumstances, as the recipients of US fundings have been disclosed without any problems. So why don't tell the public where Iraqs money flows into? Why? Just state me ONE good reason for it. Just one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What? Are they serious? Do they have the slightest clue how contracts are allocated? You dont take 18.4 billion dollars, hurl it into the air and watch companies scurrying around fixing things. Spending 1.5 billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction money was always going to be a little bit simpler than spending almost 13 times that amount, and as of September 8th 2004 over 1 billion dollars of that 18.4 billion had already been spent, and 100 million more of that money was being spent every week. First they spent the Iraqi money, then they started spending their own. Whats wrong with that? Both are going to be used up eventually - these people are nothing but whiners, seeking every nitty gritty thing they can to complain about. There were reallocations of that money towards increased security to be honest, but over 1/3 still remained earmarked for water facilities and electricity, and was and is being spent at a rate comensurate with the demand from companies willing to brave the security concerns and reconstruct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> from the article: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, most of the $18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet,<span style='color:quot'> despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The CPA was not even supposed to do it anymore. There was another authority established to do it, but somehow that did not work out quite well. And believe me, there is enough possibility to spend money on down there. Saving it up is definately not helping anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your analysis is wrong - it is fundamentally flawed because it is underlined with 100% hatred and suspicion of the US, and you will oppose them and anything they do, no matter what their aims are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a saying about attacking the person, not the arguments ... Besides, you are wrong. I was never opposed to Afghanistan for example. Your accusations and display your own narrow minded view of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have the wrong president. Bush will not back down. He was returned to office with an increased majority because the American people wanted him to finish the job. He will not abandon the country to become a bloody hellhole as so many want him to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you take a closer look, they are already doing so. They rush the reinstallement of the Iraqi military presence. It is going really fast.They are doing so to pull their bulk out of the conflict. So far, no problem. If you see recent reports from Iraq, you see more and more Iraqi troops on guard instead of US. In that perspective, your claim that they fight iraqi people is true.
Problem is, that the shiites are the dominant power now. it was forseeable that they would become the stronges parliamental force in the country. They stoped their hostilities toward the US to gain their support. In these days, more and more administrative positions and suposedly the bulk of the security forces are shiites.
To make a long story short, the US and British are preparing to bail out. and as soon as that happens, the whole country will start to go rampart. The sunnites will start to bomb the shiites, the shiites will start to shoot the sunnies. They will proclaim their their governmental status as justification for that.
And voila, you have created another long term hotspot about which our children can argue via Internet. Basically, you will generate the exact opposite situation from before the war, simply exchange the opressor with the opressed. Well, maybe they deserve it.
sorry if this isn't what you meant but, No I don't think you could ever win a war on terror because even if the situatiion in Iraq is solved you've only got to wait until someone else gets annoyed about something and goes radical. My point is "in every human mind lies the potential for something terrible" so no matter how many terrorists you capture/kill([enter religious idol] forbid) ther is always the chance of someone else becoming one. Again sorry if this isn't what you meant but to be honest some of these posts are like novels.(sorry)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> sorry if this isn't what you meant but, No I don't think you could ever win a war on terror because even if the situatiion in Iraq is solved you've only got to wait until someone else gets annoyed about something and goes radical. My point is "in every human mind lies the potential for something terrible" so no matter how many terrorists you capture/kill([enter religious idol] forbid) ther is always the chance of someone else becoming one. Again sorry if this isn't what you meant but to be honest some of these posts are like novels.(sorry) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, you got it.
I recommend some research on the 30 years war, which is the perfect example for the concept of satelite conflicts and a perfect example for religious motivated political agendas. While it officially started in 1618 and lasted until 1648 (with brief intermissions of peace), the foundations for the war were laid long time ago during the period of the protestant movement and the schism (correct term?) within the church. Religious zeal mixed with political interests. Competeting european powers fueld the war between the different christian movements manifesting in central europe, while the nations where the war raged sank into chaos and decay.
Here you find some english sources. I haven't checked them myself, thats just the first one I found on google. Go into it if your intrrerested. <a href='http://www.niester.de/g_neuzeit/krieg_30_jahre/krieg_30_jahre.html' target='_blank'>http://www.niester.de/g_neuzeit/krieg_30_j...g_30_jahre.html</a>
My personal thoughts about the new emphasis on terroristic warfare is, that the equilibrium of power established during the cold war does not exist anymore. In satelite conflicts durig that age (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc, ) both sides were heaviliy supported by one of the superpowers, which allowed the inferior force to hold their ground in more conventional guerrilia warfare. While this support does not exist nowadays, they blow up cars instead shooting down helicopters.
As for the Iraq, well, the countrys future depends heavily on how the sunnites react to the shiites offers of letting them participate in the new government. There is much potential for conflict here, but the shiites at least seam to act reasonable. Now let us hope, that the sunnite leaders are reasonable too, otherwhise we have another long term civil war.
I believe the war on terror cannot be won, because as humans we will always progress into a stage of regression no matter what. Although we might gain one thing in this age of marvel, of that we have gained we will also lose in another way.
Eventually, most cultures will be assimiliated; it is unavoidable and the only way to increase order withal or without bloodshed, because the world needs unity.
only way to win against terrorism is have, MANY nations unified, and have them use their CIA, covert agents, elite military...that's winning against terrorism in the short run. they could concentrate on getting rid of the people who fund the terrorists and other covert operations.
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
EX: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000.
only way to win against terrorism is have, MANY nations unified, and have them use their CIA, covert agents, elite military...that's winning against terrorism in the short run. they could concentrate on getting rid of the people who fund the terrorists and other covert operations.
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
Example: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000.
Comments
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards.
What the US interrogators do is deprive them of sleep for as long as the interrogator himself can stay up, without tag teaming, and push them the whole time for information. That is nothing like the extreme sleep deprivation that Blackmage is describing, and I fail to see why that form was even mentioned in relation to this discussion.
Heck with it, I'll just copy over the entire article on US interrogations because based around some of the things being said here, it would seem it hasnt quite sunk in:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It didn’t take long for interrogators in the war on terror to realize that their part was not going according to script. Pentagon doctrine, honed over decades of cold-war planning, held that 95 percent of prisoners would break upon straightforward questioning. Interrogators in Afghanistan, and later in Cuba and Iraq, found just the opposite: virtually none of the terror detainees was giving up information—not in response to direct questioning, and not in response to army-approved psychological gambits for prisoners of war.
Debate erupted in detention centers across the globe about how to get detainees to talk. Were “stress techniques”—such as isolation or sleep deprivation to decrease a detainee’s resistance to questioning—acceptable? Before the discussion concluded, however, the photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison appeared. Though they showed the sadism of a prison out of control, they showed nothing about interrogation.
Nevertheless, Bush-administration critics seized on the scandal as proof that prisoner “torture” had become routine. A master narrative—call it the “torture narrative”—sprang up: the government’s 2002 decision to deny Geneva-convention status to al-Qaida fighters, it held, “led directly to the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq,” to quote the Washington Post. In particular, torturous interrogation methods, developed at Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan in illegal disregard of Geneva protections, migrated to Abu Ghraib and were manifest in the abuse photos.
This story’s success depends on the reader’s remaining ignorant of the actual interrogation techniques promulgated in the war on terror. Not only were they light years from real torture and hedged around with bureaucratic safeguards, but they had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib anarchy. Moreover, the decision on the Geneva conventions was irrelevant to interrogation practices in Iraq.
No matter. The Pentagon’s reaction to the scandal was swift and sweeping. It stripped interrogators not just of stress options but of traditional techniques long regarded as uncontroversial as well. Red tape now entangles the interrogation process, and detainees know that their adversaries’ hands are tied.
The need for rethinking interrogation doctrine in the war on terror will not go away, however. The Islamist enemy is unlike any the military has encountered in the past. If current wisdom on the rules of war prohibits making any distinction between a terrorist and a lawful combatant, then that orthodoxy needs to change.
The interrogation debate first broke out on the frigid plains of Afghanistan. Marines and other special forces would dump planeloads of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners into a ramshackle detention facility outside the Kandahar airport; waiting interrogators were then supposed to extract information to be fed immediately back into the battlefield—whether a particular mountain pass was booby-trapped, say, or where an arms cache lay. That “tactical” debriefing accomplished, the Kandahar interrogation crew would determine which prisoners were significant enough to be shipped on to the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba for high-level interrogation.
Army doctrine gives interrogators 16 “approaches” to induce prisoners of war to divulge critical information. Sporting names like “Pride and Ego Down” and “Fear Up Harsh,” these approaches aim to exploit a detainee’s self-love, allegiance to or resentment of comrades, or sense of futility. Applied in the right combination, they will work on nearly everyone, the intelligence soldiers had learned in their training.
But the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came.”
Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.
Even if a prisoner had not previously studied American detention policies before arriving at Kandahar, he soon figured them out. “It became very clear very early on to the detainees that the Americans were just going to have them sit there,” recalls interrogator Joe Martin (a pseudonym). “They realized: ‘The Americans will give us our Holy Book, they’ll draw lines on the floor showing us where to pray, we’ll get three meals a day with fresh fruit, do Jazzercise with the guards, . . . we can wait them out.’ ”
Even more challenging was that these detainees bore little resemblance to traditional prisoners of war. The army’s interrogation manual presumed adversaries who were essentially the mirror image of their captors, motivated by emotions that all soldiers share. A senior intelligence official who debriefed prisoners in the 1989 U.S. operation in Panama contrasts the battlefield then and now: “There were no martyrs down there, believe me,” he chuckles. “The Panamanian forces were more understandable people for us. Interrogation was pretty straightforward: ‘Love of Family’ [an army-manual approach, promising, say, contact with wife or children in exchange for cooperation] or, ‘Here’s how you get out of here as fast as you can.’ ”
“Love of family” often had little purchase among the terrorists, however—as did love of life. “The jihadists would tell you, ‘I’ve divorced this life, I don’t care about my family,’ ” recalls an interrogator at Guantánamo. “You couldn’t shame them.” The fierce hatred that the captives bore their captors heightened their resistance. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan reported in January 2002 that prisoners in Kandahar would “shout epithets at their captors, including threats against the female relatives of the soldiers guarding them, knee marines in the groin, and say that they will escape and kill ‘more Americans and Jews.’ ” Such animosity continued in Guantánamo.
Battlefield commanders in Afghanistan and intelligence officials in Washington kept pressing for information, however. The frustrated interrogators constantly discussed how to get it. The best hope, they agreed, was to re-create the “shock of capture”—that vulnerable mental state when a prisoner is most frightened, most uncertain, and most likely to respond to questioning. Uncertainty is an interrogator’s most powerful ally; exploited wisely, it can lead the detainee to believe that the interrogator is in total control and holds the key to his future. The Kandahar detainees, however, learned almost immediately what their future held, no matter how egregious their behavior: nothing untoward.
Many of the interrogators argued for a calibrated use of “stress techniques”—long interrogations that would cut into the detainees’ sleep schedules, for example, or making a prisoner kneel or stand, or aggressive questioning that would put a detainee on edge.
Joe Martin—a crack interrogator who discovered that a top al-Qaida leader, whom Pakistan claimed to have in custody, was still at large and directing the Afghani resistance—explains the psychological effect of stress: “Let’s say a detainee comes into the interrogation booth and he’s had resistance training. He knows that I’m completely handcuffed and that I can’t do anything to him. If I throw a temper tantrum, lift him onto his knees, and walk out, you can feel his uncertainty level rise dramatically. He’s been told: ‘They won’t physically touch you,’ and now you have. The point is not to beat him up but to introduce the reality into his mind that he doesn’t know where your limit is.” Grabbing someone by the top of the collar has had a more profound effect on the outcome of questioning than any actual torture could have, Martin maintains. “The guy knows: You just broke your own rules, and that’s scary. He might demand to talk to my supervisor. I’ll respond: ‘There are no supervisors here,’ and give him a maniacal smile.”
The question was: Was such treatment consistent with the Geneva conventions?
President Bush had declared in February 2002 that al-Qaida members fell wholly outside the conventions and that Taliban prisoners would not receive prisoner-of-war status—without which they, too, would not be covered by the Geneva rules. Bush ordered, however, that detainees be treated humanely and in accordance with Geneva principles, to the extent consistent with military necessity. This second pronouncement sank in: all of the war on terror’s detention facilities chose to operate under Geneva rules. Contrary to the fulminations of rights advocates and the press, writes Chris Mackey, “Every signal we interrogators got from above from the colonels at [the Combined Forces Land Component Command] in Kuwait to the officers at Central Command back in Tampa—had been . . . to observe the Conventions, respect prisoners’ rights, and never cut corners.”
What emerged was a hybrid and fluid set of detention practices. As interrogators tried to overcome the prisoners’ resistance, their reference point remained Geneva and other humanitarian treaties. But the interrogators pushed into the outer limits of what they thought the law allowed, undoubtedly recognizing that the prisoners in their control violated everything the pacts stood for.
The Geneva conventions embody the idea that even in as brutal an activity as war, civilized nations could obey humanitarian rules: no attacking civilians and no retaliation against enemy soldiers once they fall into your hands. Destruction would be limited as much as possible to professional soldiers on the battlefield. That rule required, unconditionally, that soldiers distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly.
Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head.
Even so, terror interrogators tried to follow the spirit of the Geneva code for conventional, uniformed prisoners of war. That meant, as the code puts it, that the detainees could not be tortured or subjected to “any form of coercion” in order to secure information. They were to be “humanely” treated, protected against “unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind,” and were entitled to “respect for their persons and their honour.”
The Kandahar interrogators reached the following rule of thumb, reports Mackey: if a type of behavior toward a prisoner was no worse than the way the army treated its own members, it could not be considered torture or a violation of the conventions. Thus, questioning a detainee past his bedtime was lawful as long as his interrogator stayed up with him. If the interrogator was missing exactly the same amount of sleep as the detainee—and no tag-teaming of interrogators would be allowed, the soldiers decided—then sleep deprivation could not be deemed torture. In fact, interrogators were routinely sleep-deprived, catnapping maybe one or two hours a night, even as the detainees were getting long beauty sleeps. Likewise, if a boot-camp drill sergeant can make a recruit kneel with his arms stretched out in front without violating the Convention Against Torture, an interrogator can use that tool against a recalcitrant terror suspect.
Did the stress techniques work? Yes. “The harsher methods we used . . . the better information we got and the sooner we got it,” writes Mackey, who emphasizes that the methods never contravened the conventions or crossed over into torture.
Stress broke a young bomb maker, for instance. Six months into the war, special forces brought a young Afghan to the Kandahar facility, the likely accomplice of a Taliban explosives expert who had been blowing up aid workers. Joe Martin got the assignment.
“Who’s your friend the Americans are looking for?” the interrogation began.
“I don’t know.”
“You think this is a joke? What do you think I’ll do?”
“Torture me.”
So now I understand his fear, Martin recollects.
The interrogation continued: “You’ll stand here until you tell me your friend.”
“No, sir, he’s not my friend.”
Martin picked up a book and started reading. Several hours later, the young Taliban was losing his balance and was clearly terrified. Moreover, he’s got two “big hillbilly guards staring at him who want to kill him,” the interrogator recalls.
“You think THIS is bad?!” the questioning starts up again.
“No, sir.”
The prisoner starts to fall; the guards stand him back up. If he falls again, and can’t get back up, Martin can do nothing further. “I have no rack,” he says matter-of-factly. The interrogator’s power is an illusion; if a detainee refuses to obey a stress order, an American interrogator has no recourse.
Martin risks a final display of his imaginary authority. “I get in his face, ‘What do you think I will do next?’ ” he barks. In the captive’s mind, days have passed, and he has no idea what awaits him. He discloses where he planted bombs on a road and where to find his associate. “The price?” Martin asks. “I made a man stand up. Is this unlawful coercion?”
Under a strict reading of the Geneva protections for prisoners of war, probably: the army forbids interrogators from even touching lawful combatants. But there is a huge gray area between the gold standard of POW treatment reserved for honorable opponents and torture, which consists of the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain. None of the stress techniques that the military has used in the war on terror comes remotely close to torture, despite the hysterical charges of administration critics. (The CIA’s behavior remains a black box.) To declare non-torturous stress off-limits for an enemy who plays by no rules and accords no respect to Western prisoners is folly.
The soldiers used stress techniques to reinforce the traditional psychological approaches. Jeff (a pseudonym), an interrogator in Afghanistan, had been assigned a cocky English Muslim, who justified the 9/11 attacks because women had been working in the World Trade Center. The British citizen deflected all further questioning. Jeff questioned him for a day and a half, without letting him sleep and playing on his religious loyalties. “I broke him on his belief in Islam,” Jeff recounts. “He realized he had messed up, because his Muslim brothers and sisters were also in the building.” The Brit broke down and cried, then disclosed the mission that al-Qaida had put him on before capture. But once the prisoner was allowed to sleep for six hours, he again “clammed up.”
Halfway across the globe, an identical debate had broken out, among interrogators who were encountering the same obstacles as the Afghanistan intelligence team. The U.S. base at Guantánamo was supposed to be getting the Afghanistan war’s worst of the worst: the al-Qaida Arabs and their high Taliban allies.
Usama bin Ladin’s driver and bodyguard were there, along with explosives experts, al-Qaida financiers and recruiters, would-be suicide recruits, and the architects of numerous attacks on civilian targets. They knew about al-Qaida’s leadership structure, its communication methods, and its plans to attack the U.S. And they weren’t talking. “They’d laugh at you; ‘You’ve asked me this before,’ they’d say contemptuously,” reports Major General Michael Dunlavey, a former Guantánamo commanding officer. “Their resistance was tenacious. They’d already had 90 days in Afghanistan to get their cover stories together and to plan with their compatriots.”
Even more than Afghanistan, Guantánamo dissipated any uncertainty the detainees might have had about the consequences of noncooperation. Consistent with the president’s call for humane treatment, prisoners received expert medical care, three culturally appropriate meals each day, and daily opportunities for prayer, showers, and exercise. They had mail privileges and reading materials. Their biggest annoyance was boredom, recalls one interrogator. Many prisoners disliked the move from Camp X-Ray, the first facility used at the base, to the more commodious Camp Delta, because it curtailed their opportunities for homosexual sex, says an intelligence analyst. The captives protested every perceived infringement of their rights but, as in Afghanistan, ignored any reciprocal obligation. They hurled excrement and urine at guards, used their blankets as garrotes, and created additional weapons out of anything they could get their hands on—including a sink wrenched off a wall. Guards who responded to the attacks—with pepper spray or a water hose, say—got punished and, in one case, court-martialed.
Gitmo personnel disagreed sharply over what tools interrogators could legally use. The FBI took the most conservative position. When a bureau agent questioning Mohamedou Ould Slahi—a Mauritanian al-Qaida operative who had recruited two of the 9/11 pilots—was getting nothing of value, an army interrogator suggested, “Why don’t you mention to him that conspiracy is a capital offense?” “That would be a violation of the Convention Against Torture,” shot back the agent—on the theory that any covert threat inflicts “severe mental pain.” Never mind that district attorneys and police detectives routinely invoke the possibility of harsh criminal penalties to get criminals to confess. Federal prosecutors in New York have even been known to remind suspects that they are more likely to keep their teeth and not end up as sex slaves by pleading to a federal offense, thus avoiding New York City’s Rikers Island jail. Using such a method against an al-Qaida jihadist, by contrast, would be branded a serious humanitarian breach.
Top military commanders often matched the FBI’s restraint, however. “It was ridiculous the things we couldn’t do,” recalls an army interrogator. “One guy said he would talk if he could see the ocean. It wasn’t approved, because it would be a change of scenery”—a privilege that discriminated in favor of a cooperating detainee, as opposed to being available to all, regardless of their behavior.
Frustration with prisoner stonewalling reached a head with Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who had been fighting with Usama bin Ladin’s bodyguards in Afghanistan in December 2001. By July 2002, analysts had figured out that Kahtani was the missing 20th hijacker. He had flown into Orlando International Airport from Dubai on August 4, 2001, but a sharp-eyed customs agent had denied him entry. Waiting for him at the other side of the gate was Mohamed Atta.
Kahtani’s resistance strategies were flawless. Around the first anniversary of 9/11, urgency to get information on al-Qaida grew. Finally, army officials at Guantánamo prepared a legal analysis of their interrogation options and requested permission from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to use various stress techniques on Kahtani. Their memo, sent up the bureaucratic chain on October 11, 2002, triggered a fierce six-month struggle in Washington among military lawyers, administration officials, and Pentagon chiefs about interrogation in the war on terror.
To read the techniques requested is to understand how restrained the military has been in its approach to terror detainees—and how utterly false the torture narrative has been. Here’s what the interrogators assumed they could not do without clearance from the secretary of defense: yell at detainees (though never in their ears), use deception (such as posing as Saudi intelligence agents), and put detainees on MREs (meals ready to eat—vacuum-sealed food pouches eaten by millions of soldiers, as well as vacationing backpackers) instead of hot rations. The interrogators promised that this dangerous dietary measure would be used only in extremis, pending local approval and special training.
The most controversial technique approved was “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing,” to be reserved only for a “very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees” believed to possess critical intelligence. A detainee could be poked only after review by Gitmo’s commanding general of intelligence and the commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, and only pursuant to “careful coordination” and monitoring.
None of this remotely approaches torture or cruel or degrading treatment. Nevertheless, fanatically cautious Pentagon lawyers revolted, claiming that the methods approved for Kahtani violated international law. Uncharacteristically irresolute, Rumsfeld rescinded the Guantánamo techniques in January 2003.
Kahtani’s interrogation hung fire for three months, while a Washington committee, with representatives from the undersecretary of defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the air force, army, navy, and marine corps, and attorneys from every branch of the military, considered how to approach the 20th hijacker.
The outcome of this massive deliberation was more restrictive than the Geneva conventions themselves, even though they were to apply only to unlawful combatants, not conventional prisoners of war, and only to those held at Guantánamo Bay. It is worth scrutinizing the final 24 techniques Rumsfeld approved for terrorists at Gitmo in April 2003, since these are the techniques that the media presents as the source of “torture” at Abu Ghraib. The torture narrative holds that illegal methods used at Guantánamo migrated to Iraq and resulted in the abuse of prisoners there.
So what were these cruel and degrading practices? For one, providing a detainee an incentive for cooperation—such as a cigarette or, especially favored in Cuba, a McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich or a Twinkie unless specifically approved by the secretary of defense. In other words, if an interrogator had learned that Usama bin Ladin’s accountant loved Cadbury chocolate, and intended to enter the interrogation booth armed with a Dairy Milk Wafer to extract the name of a Saudi financier, he needed to “specifically determine that military necessity requires” the use of the Dairy Milk Wafer and send an alert to Secretary Rumsfeld that chocolate was to be deployed against an al-Qaida operative.
Similar restrictions—a specific finding of military necessity and notice to Rumsfeld—applied to other tried-and-true army psychological techniques. These included “Pride and Ego Down”—attacking a detainee’s pride to goad him into revealing critical information—as well as “Mutt and Jeff,” the classic good cop–bad cop routine of countless police shows. Isolating a detainee from other prisoners to prevent collaboration and to increase his need to talk required not just notice and a finding of military necessity but “detailed implementation instructions [and] medical and psychological review.”
The only non-conventional “stress” techniques on the final Guantánamo list are such innocuous interventions as adjusting the temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell into the interrogation room, but only if the interrogator is present at all times; reversing a detainee’s sleep cycles from night to day (call this the “Flying to Hong Kong” approach); and convincing a detainee that his interrogator is not from the U.S.
Note that none of the treatments shown in the Abu Ghraib photos, such as nudity or the use of dogs, was included in the techniques certified for the unlawful combatants held in Cuba. And those mild techniques that were certified could only be used with extensive bureaucratic oversight and medical monitoring to ensure “humane,” “safe,” and “lawful” application.
After Rumsfeld cleared the 24 methods, interrogators approached Kahtani once again. They relied almost exclusively on isolation and lengthy interrogations. They also used some “psy-ops” (psychological operations). Ten or so interrogators would gather and sing the Rolling Stones’ “Time Is on My Side” outside Kahtani’s cell. Sometimes they would play a recording of “Enter Sandman” by the heavy-metal group Metallica, which brought Kahtani to tears, because he thought (not implausibly) he was hearing the sound of Satan.
Finally, at 4 am—after an 18-hour, occasionally loud, interrogation, during which Kahtani head-butted his interrogators—he started giving up information, convinced that he was being sold out by his buddies. The entire process had been conducted under the watchful eyes of a medic, a psychiatrist, and lawyers, to make sure that no harm was done. Kahtani provided detailed information on his meetings with Usama bin Ladin, on Jose Padilla and Richard Reid, and on Adnan El Shukrijumah, one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists, believed to be wandering between South and North America.
Since then, according to Pentagon officials, none of the non-traditional techniques approved for Kahtani has been used on anyone else at Guantánamo Bay.
The final strand in the “torture narrative” is the least grounded in actual practice, but it has had the most distorting effect on the public debate. In the summer of 2002, the CIA sought legal advice about permissible interrogation techniques for the recently apprehended Abu Zubaydah, Usama bin Ladin’s chief recruiter in the 1990s. The Palestinian Zubaydah had already been sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan for an abortive plot to bomb hotels there during the millennium celebration; he had arranged to obliterate the Los Angeles airport on the same night. The CIA wanted to use techniques on Zubaydah that the military uses on marines and other elite fighters in Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape (SERE) school, which teaches how to withstand torture and other pressures to collaborate. The techniques are classified, but none allegedly involves physical contact. (Later, the CIA is said to have used “water-boarding”—temporarily submerging a detainee in water to induce the sensation of drowning—on Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Water-boarding is the most extreme method the CIA has applied, according to a former Justice Department attorney, and arguably it crosses the line into torture.)
In response to the CIA’s request, Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee produced a hair-raising memo that understandably caused widespread alarm. Bybee argued that a U.S. law ratifying the 1984 Convention Against Torture—covering all persons, whether lawful combatants or not—forbade only physical pain equivalent to that “accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or mental pain that resulted in “significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” More troubling still, Bybee concluded that the torture statute and international humanitarian treaties did not bind the executive branch in wartime.
This infamous August “torture memo” represents the high (or low) point of the Bush administration’s theory of untrammeled presidential war-making power. But note: it had nothing to do with the interrogation debates and experiments unfolding among Pentagon interrogators in Afghanistan and Cuba. These soldiers struggling with al-Qaida resistance were perfectly ignorant about executive-branch deliberations on the outer boundaries of pain and executive power (which, in any case, were prepared for and seen only by the CIA). “We had no idea what went on in Washington,” said Chris Mackey in an interview. A Guantánamo lawyer involved in the Kahtani interrogation echoes Mackey: “We were not aware of the [Justice Department and White House] debates.” Interrogators in Iraq were equally unaware of the Bybee memo.
Nevertheless, when the Bybee analysis was released in June 2004, it became the capstone on the torture narrative, the most damning link between the president’s decision that the Geneva conventions didn’t apply to terrorists and the sadistic behavior of the military guards at Abu Ghraib. Seymour Hersh, the left-wing journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib story, claims that the Bybee torture memo was the “most suggestive document, in terms of what was really going on inside military prisons and detention centers.”
But not only is the Bybee memo irrelevant to what happened in Abu Ghraib; so, too, are the previous interrogation debates in Afghanistan and Cuba. The abuse at Abu Ghraib resulted from the Pentagon’s failure to plan for any outcome of the Iraq invasion except the most rosy scenario, its failure to respond to the insurgency once it broke out, and its failure to keep military discipline from collapsing in the understaffed Abu Ghraib facility. Interrogation rules were beside the point.
As the avalanche of prisoners taken in the street fighting overwhelmed the inadequate contingent of guards and officers at Abu Ghraib, order within the ranks broke down as thoroughly as order in the operation of the prison itself. Soldiers talked back to their superiors, refused to wear uniforms, operated prostitution and bootlegging rings, engaged in rampant and public sexual misbehavior, covered the facilities with graffiti, and indulged in drinking binges while on duty. No one knew who was in command. The guards’ sadistic and sexualized treatment of prisoners was just an extension of the chaos they were already wallowing in with no restraint from above. Meanwhile, prisoners regularly rioted; insurgents shelled the compound almost daily; the army sent only rotten, bug-infested rations; and the Iraqi guards sold favors to the highest bidders among the insurgents.
The idea that the abuse of the Iraqi detainees resulted from the president’s decision on the applicability of the Geneva conventions to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees is absurd on several grounds. Everyone in the military chain of command emphasized repeatedly that the Iraq conflict would be governed by the conventions in their entirety. The interrogation rules that local officers developed for Iraq explicitly stated that they were promulgated under Geneva authority, and that the conventions applied. Moreover, almost all the behavior shown in the photographs occurred in the dead of night among military police, wholly separate from interrogations. Most abuse victims were not even scheduled to be interrogated, because they were of no intelligence value. Finally, except for the presence of dogs, none of the behavior shown in the photos was included in the interrogation rules promulgated in Iraq. Mandated masturbation, dog leashes, assault, and stacking naked prisoners in pyramids—none of these depredations was an approved (or even contemplated) interrogation practice, and no interrogator ordered the military guards to engage in them.
It is the case that intelligence officers in Iraq and Afghanistan were making use of nudity and phobias about dogs at the time. Nudity was not officially sanctioned, and the official rule about dogs only allowed their “presence” in the interrogation booth, not their being sicced on naked detainees. The argument that such techniques contributed to a dehumanization of the detainees, which in turn led to their abuse, is not wholly implausible. Whether or not those two particular stressors are worth defending (and many interrogators say they are not), their abuse should not discredit the validity of other stress techniques that the military was cautiously experimenting with in the months before Abu Ghraib.
That experiment is over. Reeling under the PR disaster of Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon shut down every stress technique but one—isolation—and that can be used only after extensive review. An interrogator who so much as requests permission to question a detainee into the night could be putting his career in jeopardy. Even the traditional army psychological approaches have fallen under a deep cloud of suspicion: deflating a detainee’s ego, aggressive but non-physical histrionics, and good cop–bad cop have been banished along with sleep deprivation.
Timidity among officers prevents the energetic application of those techniques that remain. Interrogation plans have to be triple-checked all the way up through the Pentagon by officers who have never conducted an interrogation in their lives.
In losing these techniques, interrogators have lost the ability to create the uncertainty vital to getting terrorist information. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the military has made public nearly every record of its internal interrogation debates, providing al-Qaida analysts with an encyclopedia of U.S. methods and constraints. Those constraints make perfectly clear that the interrogator is not in control. “In reassuring the world about our limits, we have destroyed our biggest asset: detainee doubt,” a senior Pentagon intelligence official laments.
Soldiers on the ground are noticing the consequences. “The Iraqis already know the game. They know how to play us,” a marine chief warrant officer told the Wall Street Journal in August. “Unless you catch the Iraqis in the act, it is very hard to pin anything on anyone . . . . We can’t even use basic police interrogation tactics.”
And now the rights advocates, energized by the Abu Ghraib debacle, are making one final push to halt interrogation altogether. In the New York Times’s words, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is now condemning the thoroughly emasculated interrogation process at Guantánamo Bay as a “system devised to break the will of the prisoners [and] make them wholly dependent on their interrogators.” In other words, the ICRC opposes traditional interrogation itself, since all interrogation is designed to “break the will of prisoners” and make them feel “dependent on their interrogators.” But according to an ICRC report leaked to the Times, “the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”
But contrary to the fantasies of the international-law and human rights lobbies, a world in which all interrogation is illegal and rights are indiscriminately doled out is not a safer or more just world. Were the United States to announce that terrorists would be protected under the Geneva conventions, it would destroy any incentive our ruthless enemies have to comply with the laws of war. The Washington Post and the New York Times understood that truth in 1987, when they supported President Ronald Reagan’s rejection of an amendment to the Geneva conventions that would have granted lawful-combatant status to terrorists. Today, however, those same opinion makers have done an about-face, though the most striking feature of their denunciations of the Bush administration’s Geneva decisions is their failure to offer any explanation for how al-Qaida could possibly be covered under the plain meaning of the text.
The Pentagon is revising the rules for interrogation. If we hope to succeed in the war on terror, the final product must allow interrogators to use stress techniques against unlawful combatants. Chris Mackey testifies to how “ineffective schoolhouse methods were in getting prisoners to talk.” He warns that his team “failed to break prisoners who I have no doubt knew of terrorist plots or at least terrorist cells that may one day do us harm. Perhaps they would have talked if faced with harsher methods.”
The stress techniques that the military has used to date are not torture; the advocates can only be posturing in calling them such. On its website, Human Rights Watch lists the effects of real torture: “from pain and swelling to broken bones, irreparable neurological damage, and chronic painful musculoskeletal problems . . . [to] long-term depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions, not to mention feelings of powerlessness, of fear, guilt and shame.” Though none of the techniques that Pentagon interrogators have employed against al-Qaida comes anywhere close to risking such effects, Human Rights Watch nevertheless follows up its list with an accusation of torture against the Bush administration.
The pressure on the Pentagon to outlaw stress techniques won’t abate, as the American Civil Liberties Union continues to release formerly classified government documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit concerning detention and interrogation. As of late December, the memos have merely confirmed that the FBI opposes stress methods, though the press breathlessly portrays them as confirming “torture.”
Human Rights Watch, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and the other self-professed guardians of humanitarianism need to come back to earth—to the real world in which torture means what the Nazis and the Japanese did in their concentration and POW camps in World War II; the world in which evil regimes, like those we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, don’t follow the Miranda rules or the Convention Against Torture but instead gas children, bury people alive, set wild animals on soccer players who lose, and hang adulterous women by truckloads before stadiums full of spectators; the world in which barbarous death cults behead female aid workers, bomb crowded railway stations, and fly planes filled with hundreds of innocent passengers into buildings filled with thousands of innocent and unsuspecting civilians. By definition, our terrorist enemies and their state supporters have declared themselves enemies of the civilized order and its humanitarian rules. In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway, nice circular logic - because sleep deprivation is torture, then saying sleep deprivation is used in interrogation procedures, which automatically makes it torture, hence proving that sleep deprivation is torture. You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real. I'd like to see evidence of this being policy, de jure or de facto, before I take the "they're being held without anyone knowing what's going on, therefore they must be being tortured" route.
Sorry, but the Taliban were the official government. They were elected beforehand and whether they were a brutal regime or not, they were the government, and their soldiers and police forces were the official enforcement of their power. When you declare war on them, you must fight their army. They did. Wheres the problem?
The blending in the population was the great fear the Coalition had, but there were never occurances to an extend that it reached enough attention to justify a headline. the forces were suspicios to the inhabitants and treated them as possible enemies, but there have neither been mamy reports of losses on US side due to surprise attacks of disguised Taliban, nor about civil casualties because of misjudgment by US troops.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Victim? Nice try to play with emotions. If these guys were insurgents or terrorists, then I wouldn't call them that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how do you know? Not every Iraqi is an insurgent. Not every Iraqi is connected to the uprising. They are suspects and as such they are arrested and interrogated. However, you don't know for sure <i>before</i> you question him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of, since everybody is throwing around definitions:
<i>
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".
Article 1.
1. <span style='color:orange'>Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him
or a third person information or a confession</span>, punishing him for an act he or
a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating
or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national
legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other
measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of
war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked
as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked
as a justification of torture.
...
</i>
Now lets take a deeper look into the means of torture.
First big misconception is, that cutting or chopping, or any other means of disfiguring or inflicting severe injuries, are common torture methods throughout the world.
They are not, even in the worst regimes, because of 2 reasons. They are ineffective and you clearly see the results. The recipient is likely to pass out continuously and eventually will tell you what you want to hear.... regardless if that it is the truth or not.
It is an ineffective method, because it is not enduring enough. If you continue it
indefinitely (eg going on to the toes etc. ) the subject is simply going to die from
shock and pain, or rendered into a catatonic state of delusion.
<b>
Disfiguring torture is a form of PUSIHMENT, applied to political enemies in order to send a clearly visible warning to his associates. Any regime that uses visible means of torture does so in order to create fear. Not to gain information.
</b>
Treatments like burning, beating, superficial cutting or electro treatments are only effective because of the sentiment of terror that is invoked in the victim. However it is more the psychological effect of the pain that does the trick rahter the pain itself. The torture must be applied for several days to weeks, during which the interrogators first explain the method they are going to apply, to invoke the fear of the coming pain.
Then, the victim is exposed to small but constantly raised dosages of pain, each followed by a "recreational period" in which the victim is allowed to rest, or even gets treatment for sustained injuries.
The goal is to clarify, that the interrogators can inflict pain at every time and can ease it the same way. These two factors depend on the victims cooperation. The Interrogators will often establish a personal connection to the victim, in order to gain his trust, and try to convince him that he does not have to endure this if he does not want. ("Its hurting me more that you...")
This treatment however must be continued for prolonged times, and <span style='color:orange'>you can never be absolutely sure if the information is correct,</span> since the victim will try to tell you what you want to hear in order to end the torture. That includes <span style='color:orange'>false confessions</span>. The treatment must thus be continued even if the victim confesses, in order to confirm the information.
In medieval times, physical torture was applied since more sophisticated methods were unknown. The infamous Inquisition resulted in hundreds of thousands of false confessions by suspected heretics.
Now let’s have a look on sleep deprivation. First off, sleep deprivation as an interrogational method is known since ages. The ancient Romans used it to gain information from prisoners, in ancient China, it was applied as punishment and in very severe chases as a mean of executing a death penalty.
Yes, it can be used as a way to torture a man to death. If sustained over several weeks during which the convict is kept constantly awake by measures like tickling or beating. He is not physically injured during the process, but eventually, he will become insane and die a very horrible death.
<b>The effects of sleep deprivation over time are:</b>
<i>
Night 1. Most people are capable of going without sleep for a night. The experience is tolerable if uncomfortable.
Night 2. The urge to sleep is much stronger, particularly between 3-5 a.m., when the body temperature is at its lowest.
Night 3. Tasks requiring sustained attention and mental calculations become seriously impaired. This is particularly the case if the task is repetitious and boring. Again, the early hours are the most crucial to needing sleep.
Night 4. From this night onwards, periods of micro-sleep occur. People stop what they are doing and stare into space for up to three seconds. The end of micro-sleep is accompanied by a return to full awareness. Confusion, irritability, misperception and the 'hat phenomenon' occur. In this, a tightening around the head is felt as though a hat too small for the head is being worn.
Night 5. On top of the effects previously mentioned, delusions (false beliefs) may be experienced. Intellectual and problem-solving abilities are largely unimpaired.
Night 6. Symptoms of depersonalization occur and a clear sense of identity is lost. This is called sleep deprivation psychosis.
The effects of sleep deprivation are more psychological than physical. Reflexes are impaired but heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and body temperature show very little change. The main physical consequences seem to be hand tremors, droopy eyelids, problems in focusing the eyes and a <span style='color:orange'> heightened sensitivity to pain. </span>
Interestingly, we seem able to catch up with sleep in a much shorter time than was lost through deprivation. A person who loses three nights of sleep might only need a slighted extended sleep in order to feel fully refreshed.
</i>
Adapted from Huber-Weidman, 1976.
So let us see the effects of enduring lack of sleep. The points above are under normal, means voluntary circumstances under lab conditions. The world record in continued sleep deprivation is held by Randy Gardner who managed to stay awake for 11 day and nights.
Everybody knows the feeling of being tired. It is unpleasant at best. Now I recommend you, just to try for once not to give in and go to sleep. Try this when you have some days off and try to stay awake for 72 Hours. As Marine01 stated, that is nothing an army does not require from its soldiers.
That is true. However, there is one big difference. The soldiers have at least 2-4 hours of sleep even during outdoor trainings or on simulated combat situations. These few hours allow for the body to recreate to an extend that the soldier is able to continue his duties. That short amount of sleep is chosen to drive the soldier to a certain limit and push beyond it, to a point where the body continies to function more or less automatically. This limits can be extended by training. The body adjusts to it. However, there are absolute limits to what the body can do. beyon that, it collapses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Interestingly, we seem able to catch up with sleep in a much shorter time than was lost through deprivation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now prolong the period without ANY rest for another 72 hours.
Now add some inconveniences.
<b>Denial of nutrition:</b>
Insufficient nutrition over several days result in the body to slow down the metabolism. The pulse frequency and blood pressure go down. The recipient becomes weak and unconcentrated. The sense of tire grows even faster, body and mind is exhausted even faster.
<b>Dehydration:</b>
Insufficient water results in basically the above mentioned symptoms, but does so after one day without enough water. This treatment can’t be applied much longer than 2 days or the recipient collapses. 3 days or more are deadly. (that is under normal circumstances, without sleep deprivation or anything else. A significantly weakened organism can react fatal far quicker)
The general effects are loss of focus and concentration within 12 hours without water. Painful symptoms like headache attacks or pain in the kidneys are common sings of dehydration.
<b>Weather conditions:</b>
Letting them stand or exercise in the hot climate of Iraq will increase the above mentioned effects dramatically. After nightfall, temperature falls drastically in desert conditions…
<b>Uncomfortable posture:</b>
Kneeling on the ground, or on an edgy piece of wood.
Or simply standing over several hours.
You may consider this not severe so I suggest trying it yourself.
If you were in the military, you will learn to stand on attention for an hour +.
That is to prepare you for the swearing- in ceremony. One and a half hour of standing.... During summertime, after one hour the first recruit usually passes out.
Try and stand still for 15 minutes. Force yourself to do it. You will experience boredom and unease after a couple of minutes. You will look at the watch to when your time is over.
Now extend to 30 minute. Feel the feet become hurting?
Maybe you have been in the position that you had to undergo an medical examination that required you to lay still for an extended time period. ( like a CT ) It is extremely unpleasant to lie for 20 minutes still and force yourself not to move.
Now imagine doing this for 5, or maybe 24 hours?
<b>Stress-factors:</b>
Loud noise, like screaming or extremely loud music, the sonic waves directed at you.
Sonic waves at high intensity can do permanent harm to the human body. Sound can kill you.
(again, the ancient Chinese being very creative have mastered that treatment to an extent where it can be used as execution. Place the victim in a bell and ponder it for a week or so.)
Powerful light sources directed at your eyes (while probably the eyelids are taped up). Especially after enduring sleep deprivation for prolonged time, the Eyes hurt dramatically, the pain becomes physically, the nerves and the head start to hurt accordingly.
Dogs barking to your face. Soldiers pushing you agains the wall, treatening you with their clubs. Especially in combination with the next point very effective....
<b>Infliction of pain.</b>
Beatings on the elbows or on the side of the knee. They do hurt extremely especially under the effects of sleep deprivation. The pain is breathtaking, yet the beatings are not, or almost not visible later, since there are no swollen eyelids or anything else.
<b>Humiliation:</b>
Humiliation practices are the tip on the balance. The methods are various. The first stage is forced nudity and standing openly visible for others on the wall. That is on places where other detainees can see you.
There you sand and count the hours.
Then, after several hours of interrogation, the interrogator switches shift with a women. The woman is the key in further destroying the self confidence of the victim. He is naked and helpless before the woman.
She will mock his genitals and make other deeply humiliating comments. Especially for Muslim people who are very dependent of their vision of manhood, that is devastating, but any man will be mentally vulnerable at this point.
There are more possible humiliation strategies, like exposing the victim to his own, or other, excrement.
For example cleaning toilets with your bare hands, or with your detention clothes, which afterwards you are forces to wear on.
Or sitting/standing in a bowel full of excrements. being forced to wash yourself with urine.
Combine this with the humiliation by being interrogated by a woman, while standing in your fecials.
<b>Sexual harassment:</b>
Homosexual harassment by the interrogators. That does not mean they are actually homosexual. It is a tactic to imply the fear of being sexually abused by the people who have absolute power over your life. It further deepens the sentiment of being lost and hopeless. It reduces the victim to an object.
Then they force you into certain positions with other detainees, possibly force you to actually commit sexual contact with the fellow detainee.
Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?
<b>Isolation</b>
By that I do not mean isolated detention, but isolating the prisoner from his fellow detainees. That is done by punishing the other detainees for another prisoners minor failures (like not cofessing). That can be done before or during the actual process of interrogating the prisoner and achieves a deep sense of guilt in the subject, which can bring him to desparation if under severe stress and exhausted.
<b>Summary:</b>
These interrogation techniques mentioned above are the one that are thought in interrogation courses for special forces. These courses are designed to prepare the personnel for possible capture and to teach them how to perform these interrogations themselves if necessary.
These techniques are used worldwide. They are not utilized because they are humane. They are not.
They are utilized because of their high effectiveness, and (as a bonus) they do not leave behind visible injuries.
These techniques are superior to any other form of interrogation, including the use of drugs.
The Russians used them as well and still do, and they do not really care whether their people dislike their governments methods or not. They are in use because they are simply the best possible strategy available.
Methods like electroshocks are contra productive, as the shock might kill a subject in case of heart insufficiencies, and it tends to paralyse (proper word?) the subjects neurotransmitter in the brain, which causes memory loss.
The effect is that, within a few days, the victim is exhausted, tired, full of pain and fear. He is losing orientation, sense of time and the sense for his personal identity. Note that the conditions in the descriptions above are under lab circumstances without any additional stress. The condition described in [/i]Night 6[/i] can be established far quicker in combination with any number of the additional treatments I summed up before.
At that point, the so called sleep deprivation psychosis kicks in. That is the point where the interrogators want you. That point is similar to the effect of drugs utilized for interrogation purposes.
At this point, you are open for suggestive messages. You can be easily manipulated. You have basically no control over what you say, while every single sense is touchy like a membrane. Sound, light, touch, beatingss, everything feels like 20 times more intense than normal..
At this point, you tell them everything, and most important, you tell the truth.
Everybody comes to this point sooner or later, it is a matter of time and whether the person is trained to sustain interrogation or not. But eventually you break down.
Do not proclaim that these methods are humane or anything remotely like it. They are not.
They are torture, not only per definition.
They differ from more spectacular methods only in the way that they do not leave behind scars.
No visible ones, that is.
The psychological effects are the same kind of long term traumata that every torture victim experiences. Besides, even these methods can lead to death if the suspect is weak at heart or otherwise handicapped, or if its simply overdone.
So as a closing note:
Yes, hardcore terrorists will not talk without this methods, so they are nessesay. I know that. But do not claim that this treatment is not really torture, as they are only forced to stay awake some hours.
And do not forget, they arrest suspects based on suspicion. Consider that, before you approve of such treatments. And imagine its you who is arrested, because your neighbors told the police that you have a Kalashnikow in your house.
P.S.: Just read this.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Eh? They do have an alternative: tell the interrogators what they know, <i>if they know something</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure.... Thats the problem, you know? How should the interrogator know whether you know something? Full program baby! thats goin' to be a long night!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 48
<b>29-November-2004</b>
<a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n48d01.htm' target='_blank'>here is your evidence</a>
A long read. I quote some important parts.
<i>
The following is the text of the lecture delivered by MEES(middle east economy survey) Editor-In-Chief Dr Khadduri at St Antony’s College, Oxford University on 19 November. The presentation was part of St Antony’s College Fall 2004 Lecture Series on Iraq.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Despite the huge proven oil reserves in Iraq, the country has failed so far to manage its industry efficiently in order to bring production capacity to a level commensurate with its reserve potential. The reason is not difficult to understand. It lies in the <b>political turmoil and wars that have engulfed Iraq throughout the past 25 years.</b>
[...]
The net result of this phenomenon was that, following a very rapid and extensive development of the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors in the seventies, the oil industry has faced destruction, a lack of investments, low priority in state objectives and degradation during the past quarter of a century.
[...]
Iraq's oil production capacity reached new levels under the Saddam regime. The most important development was during the first five-year plan (1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979, with a goal to reach 5.5mn b/d by 1983. However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995. Once more, the invasion of Kuwait,<b> followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.</b>
[...]
The industry had to live from hand to mouth, at times cannibalizing equipment from one plant to make do in another. It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship. <b>Production capacity fell because of a lack of professional oil field management, while the downstream industry suffered from a lack of upgrading and spare parts, as well as repeated attacks</b>. Basically, <b>the industry was left to deteriorate, while its regional competitors were able to increase capacity</b>, expand market share and develop their refining and petrochemical sectors.
[...]
Secondly, oil was used throughout the nineties to rescue the regime from the net closing around it. There were no oil exports throughout the first half of the nineties. When the oil-for-food program was set up in late 1996, it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. <b>However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions. </b>
[...]
The main goal of the US authorities during the May 2003 – June 2004 period was to restore Iraqi oil production capacity to its pre-war level of 2.8mn b/d. This task was entrusted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, which contracted Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root and Parsons to do so. The program involved a survey of the state of the industry and the rehabilitation of destroyed and looted infrastructure and equipment. Another objective was added shortly afterwards, involving the US financing imports of petroleum products from neighboring countries to meet rising domestic demand for gasoline as restrictions on car imports were lifted and as the domestic refineries, because of their dilapidated state and frequent sabotage of the feed and distribution pipelines, were unable to meet increased consumption.
[...]
Despite these myths, which received wide publicity and acceptance because of the quick military victory, the US authorities did not alter overall oil policy. The CPA focused on the rehabilitation of the industry to bring it back to the pre-war production level of 2.8mn b/d on the first anniversary of the war in April 2004. <b>This program has been delayed and its goal will not be met by the end of the year. </b>
[...]
Furthermore, the US authorities have had to take on the additional task of importing sufficient petroleum products from neighboring countries to bridge the gap between rising local demand and declining processing capacity. This has been no easy task, since despite the fact that the oil facilities were not destroyed during the invasion, unlike the situation during Desert Storm in 1991, there was extensive looting, theft and sabotage after the war. It <b>is estimated that the oil industry alone lost around $1bn in this systematic and organized theft in the first few months after the war. The smuggling of products from Iraq to neighboring countries continues to this day.</b>
[...]
According to Oil Minister Thamir Ghadhban, Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day. The US Army Corps of Engineers spent around $1.5bn on petroleum products purchases since May 2003. It is costing Iraq now around $200mn a month to import petroleum products, or $2.4bn a year, approximately 15% of the annual oil revenue. <b>These imports are expected to continue for at least two more years, until new units are built in the refineries.</b>
[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And as a little candy, a nice excursion into US liberation politics....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the US authorities used Iraqi oil revenue to fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities. A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded <b> US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.</b>
[...]
Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the $18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid.
[...]
The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries.
[...]
<b>Finally, when orders were given in the spring of 2004 to distribute funds to the Iraqi ministries, the security situation deteriorated and development halted</b>.
[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the falling oil prizes:
That has IMHO different reasons, as the Iraqi exports still not even have reached prewar levels.
The OPEC has agreed to counter the ever climbing oil prizes in the last quarter of 2004 by raising the extraction levels.
The prize has thus stabilized and fell to a new, low level. OPEC has declared that they lower extraction to the normal amount by the end of 2004. This must been in effect by now.
However, the oil prizes fell drastically, allowing the Nations to restock their reserves with cheap oil. These reserves calm the brokers.
As for the Future prospects, there are the plans and possibilities summed up in the essay.
In short, it depends on the political development and, more than anything else, on the level of security that can be provided.
As the article explaines, sabotage and even theft of equipment is going on till that day, clearly showing that the US forces are not capable of guarding even the most important strategic points in the area to a sufficient extent.
The reconstruction efforts are hindered, because of the constant fear of assasination or kidnapping attempts on personnel, specialists and representatives.
Even companies from other Muslim nations are retreating, yes, even the Iraqi companies are not safe. Many foreing corps are staning in the starting holes to pump their money in and get even more out of Iraq, however, as the current situation stands, they will not risk their investments. With their efford, the reconstruction od Iraq stands and falls.
Let us assume, security is established and the government is running and companies invest their money. In that case, I predict, no, I guarantee you that the reconstruction of that industry will be a disater and a total waste of billion of dollars.
From the iraq POV. Such efforts taken by foreing governments most likelydisapears in the narrow streets of corruption and fraud. Pushing money into such a desolate economy is like pouring water over asphalt.
I can tell of experience since I have a similar case directly in my own country.
I closure, I want to point out how funny I find it that people who recited their certain kind of beloved media networks back in the infamous WMD debate, for they preached Bushs wisdom about the whereabout of Saddams power of world destruction, while as soon as the wind starts blowing the other direction, they are condemmed as sensation hunting populists that only want to see the popular side of the story.
It is really amusing. I like to resign from this debate now, as it will bring no benefit.
Media science shows, that people confronted with information opposing their PoV develope an imbalance in their mind which has to be eased out. Some do rethink their position, some do not. In that case, they must continue to search for infomation representing their cause to dismiss their inner state of imbalance. One will always find information that resembles his cause on some way.
Anyway, nice circular logic - because sleep deprivation is torture, then saying sleep deprivation is used in interrogation procedures, which automatically makes it torture, hence proving that sleep deprivation is torture. You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real. I'd like to see evidence of this being policy, de jure or de facto, before I take the "they're being held without anyone knowing what's going on, therefore they must be being tortured" route. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You accuse me of flawed logic, then launch into comical extrapolation like:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, cut and paste a quote from me where I 'sounded like that'.
And by 'victim' I meant 'victim' of torture. The person on the receiving end. By definition:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entirely appropriate.
And my point, which you've ignored, was that you can't possibly equate <i>voluntary</i> and <i>involuntary</i> sleep deprevation. Physically <i>or</i> psychologically.
Just came across this link today... A good read. Hopefully it hasn't been posted yet seeing as I am just on the post from this quote.
<a href='http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/01/aiding_and_abbe.html' target='_blank'>http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/01/aiding_and_abbe.html</a> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now that is what I call unbiased reporting <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This page is damn slow and I cant get on as much any more. I just can't keep up with the usual **** for tat stuff. So I'll just say this one thing about the media...
I come from Ireland, a very conservative country, anti abortion, divorce Just legalised a few years ago, very catholic, etc. I read the papers here they all say the same thing...anti-war....I go to the book shop...one half of the entire new book section is just all these Anti-Bush books, I've never seen the likes of it before. There are no debates in the pubs anymore...so hard to find anyone who supports Bush. Go to the biggest irish political forums...theres hardly any support for him there either.
We are a neutral country, but we let American planes fly to Iraq from our airports. Irish news, not even close to American tv news propaganda about the war, just factual? people saying oh the BBC AP REUTERS are biased? what?? ITV news, Channel4 news, Sky news, its the same reporting and stories in all of them. I have watched Dutch and Belgium news, its the same. So what does that say..oh yes Europe is one big pool of bleeding heart liberals? Ireland has 10 times more in common with the US than we do with France....every country here is completely different. This euro media bias thing is rubbish. AAAAnnnd I wont be able to reply to this for awhile...good thread though keep it up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, I will quote where you said something to that effect. See above.
@the "unbiased journalism" - hey, the media runs the stories that draw viewers. That's how it's always worked, why there was a whole period of jingoism...and dead people draw viewers.
Just playin' devil's advocate. I'd hate to see our soldiers held to such standards. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sound like the US are made up of a bunch of Inquisition/witch-hunters which start cutting off fingers until they produce a confession, be it fake or real.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. But, no. I didn't say, "cut and paste a random statement I made"-- I was actually looking for one that's actually appiclible.
Thank you for giving me a helluva chuckle tonight.
Wrong. Taliban describes not only the officials but also the military forces. It is Taliban milita that is residing in Guantanamo Bay: <a href='http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02020803.html' target='_blank'>As shown here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The blending in the population was the great fear the Coalition had, but there were never occurances to an extend that it reached enough attention to justify a headline. the forces were suspicios to the inhabitants and treated them as possible enemies, but there have neither been mamy reports of losses on US side due to surprise attacks of disguised Taliban, nor about civil casualties because of misjudgment by US troops.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahahahah sorry - but what isnt reported in the media about insurgents and terrorists could fill many thousands of pages. Taliban militia forces did not have military insignia, they got shipped of to Gitmo, and the Geneva convention does not apply. The US still attempts to deal with them in the spirit of Geneva, but they are not classified as POW and rightly so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesnt happen. That's what you cannot understand here. All the torture methods you have outlined above are not practised to that extent by US interrogators. I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do not proclaim that these methods are humane or anything remotely like it. They are not.
They are torture, not only per definition.
They differ from more spectacular methods only in the way that they do not leave behind scars.
No visible ones, that is.
The psychological effects are the same kind of long term traumata that every torture victim experiences. Besides, even these methods can lead to death if the suspect is weak at heart or otherwise handicapped, or if its simply overdone.
So as a closing note:
Yes, hardcore terrorists will not talk without this methods, so they are nessesay. I know that. But do not claim that this treatment is not really torture, as they are only forced to stay awake some hours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, no US military interrogator is doing it in any way harmful to the prisoner, why are you mentioning it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 48
29-November-2004<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the qoutes, but I always prefer to read an article in full. Let us deal with your quotes:
1. Talking about total potential of Iraqi oil reserve ie perfect conditions. These conditions have never been met in Iraq's existance
2. Saddam
3. The Iraqi's havent been able to get it together since their glory days in the 70's. Further on in the article it explains why - professionals jumping ship to avoid Saddam, corruption etc. The Oil industry was already in a bad way before the US showed up, and obviously a war isnt going to make things easier.
4. What I was referring to in 3, nothing to do with the US
5. Failure of the UN oil for food scandal - though not a complete failure from Kofi's son and various other nations who profited immensely from the widespread rorting.
6. Outlines US aims for the country in 03-4, including a scheme to pay for Iraqi domestic fuel needs while oil industry is revamped - further proof that in his nefarious scheme to steal the Iraqi's oil, Bush is willing to brutally purchase fuel for Iraq civilians, no matter what the cost. It also notes that following the lifting of restrictions on car imports, demand for fuel has increased - one has to wonder how, when the entire country is in its deathrows, and everyone is fighting valiantly against US crusader infidels, that somehow their domestic market has increased dramatically.
7. ROFL. And here we discover why you have taken to quoting select sections. That quote starts off talking about "despite these myths". What myths are they talking about? <b>The myth that the war is about oil</b>, as can be seen when we read the preceding paragraph.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war, even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong.</b> Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms. In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
8. The oil ministry has taken a hammering during the war from smugglers, and is still suffering from them. Interesting information, but hardly a terrorist victory.
9. Here is where it all gets very interesting. Oil production is at 80% of prewar levels, or so they claim. (12million/d compared to 15million/d) How this can be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is beyond me. Even if the supply of oil was brought up to prewar standards, Iraq still wouldnt be exporting, because the domestic market has grown 25% (15million/d compared to 20million/d).
Summary: What it looks like to me is that the Iraqi oil industry is operating at 80% of its prewar capacity, and while they are trying to improve that, its difficult because of security problems. Your claim that the Iraqi oil industry is not exporting is correct. Your assumption that its because of the terrorists I believe to be false. Even if things were 50% better, it still wouldnt be enough because the Iraqi domestic market is booming.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as a little candy, a nice excursion into US liberation politics....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ohhh candy, I love candy. Especially candycoated excursions into leftwing fact manipulation of the MM tradition demonstrated in 1.:
1. Only 2% given to Iraqi companies? Its those horrible greedy Westerners stealing it from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi companies just dying for a crack at helping the country... oh wait, the same article just said that all Iraq's oil professionals had jumped ship back in the 80's. It's pretty obvious that the reason only 2% of the contracts were awarded to Iraqi's because they dont have the massive companies employing thousands of skilled oil technicians and packing expensive equipment. This is merely a laughable attempt to make the US look shifty.
2. Correct, it hasnt been spent. This is because you do not fix things by hurling money at them. The money is still there, and will eventually be spent.
3. Same deal - there is no point in throwing money around, especially if companies are hesitant because of the security situation. I find it promising that, despite the security situation, and despite the fact that the vast sums of money being allocated towards oil havent yet been spent in their entirety, that oil production is only 20% worse for the war and subsequent insurgency.
4. This is one you didnt mention - I wonder why:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.
Another attempt was made by some Governing Council members to invite international oil companies (IOCs) to operate in Iraq. Once more, the idea was not well received and hence not adopted.
In fact, there were good reasons to maintain a hands-off policy towards oil at this juncture. There has been, and continues to be, worldwide criticism of the Americans’ alleged ambition to control Iraqi oil, so it was thought to be wiser not to provide any more fodder for the critics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This little titbit of the US maintaining transparency and sovereignty of Iraqi oil slip your notice? Y'know, the whole thing about Brits and Yanks refusing to take certain measures, even if it slowed down oil facility reconstruction, to avoid being seen as theives?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Such efforts taken by foreing governments most likelydisapears in the narrow streets of corruption and fraud. Pushing money into such a desolate economy is like pouring water over asphalt.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with what you said before about OPEC and falling oil prices. However I disagree with this statement here. Clearly their economy is not desolate, see those Chrenkoff links I provided earlier, and also refer to your article on oil - domestic demand for oil doesnt skyrocket because times are looking tough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I closure, I want to point out how funny I find it that people who recited their certain kind of beloved media networks back in the infamous WMD debate, for they preached Bushs wisdom about the whereabout of Saddams power of world destruction, while as soon as the wind starts blowing the other direction, they are condemmed as sensation hunting populists that only want to see the popular side of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry - reporting Powell claiming Iraq had WMD's in no way constitutes preaching. Its big news - and they didnt take a side on it. If they did take a side, then you would here them reporting "Protestors have taken to the streets in their millions today to oppose the disarming of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, which intelligence agencies world wide believe has constructed and maintained massive WMD stockpiles in opposition to UN sanctions." I find it funny that you cant tell the difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is really amusing. I like to resign from this debate now, as it will bring no benefit.
Media science shows, that people confronted with information opposing their PoV develope an imbalance in their mind which has to be eased out. Some do rethink their position, some do not. In that case, they must continue to search for infomation representing their cause to dismiss their inner state of imbalance. One will always find information that resembles his cause on some way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT I made an unworthy comment here turning that statement back on you - so to save moderators the time I've deleted it myself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There is no argument about whether American troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners you have to be an absolute nut to believe otherwise. I dont even wanna see those pictures we were never shown, that were considered too vile for public consumption. Mock drownings in Bagram? 8 dead of 'natural causes'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one here is arguing that. The only question is whether it was a once off occurance, or a policy. The bulk of evidence rests with the "once off freak occurance" and as such, I sleep easy at night.
As for media bias - that much is obvious. Most liberals dont even attempt to deny that they monopolise the MSM, because its impossible in face of statistics like 13% conservative reporters, 35% liberal reporters, and 52% centrist reporters. They make hilarious claims like "we're liberal, but we try and present the story fairly" - but they dont deny they outnumber conservatives in a big way. Othello's article was yet another dissertation on the pro-islamofascist campaign by the western media.
<- pwned by marine <3
I edit this in order to clarify a statement I made to the topic of torure, which could be misunderstood. Ill mark the particular area like this here. Ecxcuse me, the post is LONG and I was in a hurry at the end.
Some typo errors are corrected too... bear with me please.
Again, I beg your pardon, I added a quote I lost somehow when I pasted the post.
All quotes were not working, so I had to requote them all manually
damn it... I added a summary on the Iraq part. Sorry, that one slippet out too.
!EDIT!</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*speechless*
<- pwned by marine <3 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I’m sooo owned…..
First off my friend, that article was a try to enlighten you about the economical condition in Iraq, not an attempt to clarify guilt ( except maybe that part under candy but we get to this later)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Talking about total potential of Iraqi oil reserve ie perfect conditions. These conditions have never been met in Iraq's existence<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The paragraph<span style='color:red'>s</span> you are most certainly referring to:
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT!
That one got lost.....
!EDIT!</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the huge proven oil reserves in Iraq, the country has failed so far to manage its industry efficiently in order to bring production capacity to a level commensurate with its reserve potential. The reason is not difficult to understand. It lies in the political turmoil and wars that have engulfed Iraq throughout the past 25 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq's oil production capacity reached new levels under the Saddam regime. The most important development was during the first five-year plan (1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979, with a goal to reach 5.5mn b/d by 1983. However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995. Once more, the invasion of Kuwait, followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It states nothing about the condition of Iraqs oil industry, but of its state of development. That roughly means how much production capability is available compared to the resources available.
It is only stating that Saddam was trying to achieve a significant increase in production capabilities, to gain an advantage over his competitors, but failed due to the Iraq/Iran war in the first place, the conflict with around Kuwait and the embargo in the second place, taking effect until the present day.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Saddam<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the parts you are most likely referring to
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
First, economic projects, including oil development, were seen as an instrument for enhancing the political authority of the regime. The principal objective was that the whole state and the Ba'th Party were there to serve the regime and its security. There were no exceptions and no one was excluded. The oil industry was part and parcel of this policy. This was particularly the case during the first and second Gulf war periods and throughout the sanctions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power.
Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man?
The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo.
Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. The Iraqi's havent been able to get it together since their glory days in the 70's. Further on in the article it explains why - professionals jumping ship to avoid Saddam, corruption etc. The Oil industry was already in a bad way before the US showed up, and obviously a war isnt going to make things easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Oil industry was developing rapidly due to the first 5 years plan long before any war broke out.
The economical development was positive and the standard of living for the Iraqi people ( unless not politically opposing) was very high. Iraq was on its way to become the most important power in the region. Those were the glory days you mention. The days of Saddam….
The oil industry was not going a bad way before the US showed up. Even after the Iran war, it almost sustained the pre-war level. The second five year development plan caused the industry to recover and reach 3.5 barrel/day
It was damadged by war, but a second development plan was underway, yet interrupted by desert storm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, the war with Iran put a halt to this plan and destroyed production and export facilities. The second five-year plan started in 1989 and brought capacity to 3.5mn b/d with a target of 6mn b/d by 1995<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we go. Still quite good export rates after the war. Yet, the economy was severely damaged. At that point, Saddam was searching for a compensation for his losses in the war, and his eye fell on Kuwait
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once more, the invasion of Kuwait, followed by 13 years of sanctions and then occupation with the subsequent looting and sabotage interrupted this plan and degraded Iraqi oil facilities even more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam?
The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living.
If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain.
The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today.
Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. That is after 25 years of US foreign politics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The industry had to live from hand to mouth, at times cannibalizing equipment from one plant to make do in another. It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship. Production capacity fell because of a lack of professional oil field management, while the downstream industry suffered from a lack of upgrading and spare parts, as well as repeated attacks. Basically, the industry was left to deteriorate, while its regional competitors were able to increase capacity, expand market share and develop their refining and petrochemical sectors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Failure of the UN oil for food scandal - though not a complete failure from Kofi's son and various other nations who profited immensely from the widespread rorting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally have not much info about the Oil for food program, as it did never really cought my attention. If you have some detail I would be glad to read.
The article states:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, oil was used throughout the nineties to rescue the regime from the net closing around it. There were no oil exports throughout the first half of the nineties. When the oil-for-food program was set up in late 1996, it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you see the program was actually used to improve the standard of living. Well understandable, since Saddam was struggling for support to remain in power. The plan to bleed him out backfired because Saddam allocated supplies to the civilians and successfully blamed the US for the poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->6. Outlines US aims for the country in 03-4, including a scheme to pay for Iraqi domestic fuel needs while oil industry is revamped - further proof that in his nefarious scheme to steal the Iraqi's oil, Bush is willing to brutally purchase fuel for Iraq civilians, no matter what the cost. It also notes that following the lifting of restrictions on car imports, demand for fuel has increased - one has to wonder how, when the entire country is in its deathrows, and everyone is fighting valiantly against US crusader infidels, that somehow their domestic market has increased dramatically.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you show that you lack knowledge about the region. Fuel is cheap in Middle Eastern countries.
Even in countries that do not have extensive oil reserves like Egypt, fuel and cars are cheap like hell.
They buy old models which usually take their way from Europe over the Eastern European countries and several owners to the middle east.
Egypt is a relatively poor country, yet the people have cars en masse and driving around in the tourists centres all day and night serving as taxis for tourist too lazy to walk to the beach.
To acquire a car is for most people a necessity, since there are few public means of transportation. The ones who cannot afford one on their own drive in groups.
Since years, no cars had been imported to Iraq. The need for the must be dire.
In all intents and purposes, a car is a Mr Everybody’s commodity in the area, but you can assume that during the embargo, fuel was mainly distributed to the military and the few privileged.
Besides you need to replace military vehicles destroyed during the war, since the new police and military forces must me mobile.
That’s the infamous Third World police unit. A truck and 3 Kalashnikovs.
But lets have a closer look.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In The BRD (Republic of Germany), on one day approximately 17187500 liters of fuel are burnt by civil vehicles ONLY. That was 1989.
Since 1990, roughly <b>8 cars every minute </b>were added to that huge amount of consumers.
In Iraq, we speak about totals that are so insignificant in comparison. In addition to that, you must divide the total consumption between demands of Iraqi law enforcement and utility equipment.
Iraq has no nuclear plants. They have no coal. Their energy production supposedly is based of fuel plants, so consider that fuel is needed to generate that bit of energy which is available.
So do not make assumptions about the “drastically increasing market” unless you understand the whereabouts of the numbers provided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->7. ROFL. And here we discover why you have taken to quoting select sections. That quote starts off talking about "despite these myths". What myths are they talking about? The myth that the war is about oil, as can be seen when we read the preceding paragraph.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I had acted like you accuse me I had edited that part and not provided a link. Please cut your little efforts to undermine my credibility.
Lets go into that particular paragraph, and by the way we take into account some of those preceding it…
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>
!EDIT!
I did rewrite that part a bit to clarify my statement. Excuse me.
!EDIT!</span>
Here you see the initial plans proposed to install an international team to overview and direct the reconstruction efford. The plan included Iraqi advisers to participate. It would have made sense, since they know the country, know the people, and it would give the Iraqis confidence that their interrets are properly represented.
However, it was decided to keep it in US and British hands. Subsequently, the demands for transparency and control over the allocated funding were not met. That is where every revenue officer will start smelling fishes.
There is where the Anti-American opposition in Iraq had a target. It was simply stupid. It could have been avoided.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another attempt was made by some Governing Council members to invite international oil companies (IOCs) to operate in Iraq. Once more, the idea was not well received and hence not adopted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason for the argument in this point could be seen in the question whether foreign oil companies should extract Iraqi oil, or Iraqi companies. Well, go figure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, there were good reasons to maintain a hands-off policy towards oil at this juncture. There has been, and continues to be, worldwide criticism of the Americans’ alleged ambition to control Iraqi oil, so it was thought to be wiser not to provide any more fodder for the critics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we have the first wise decision the Bush administration has met since the begin of the war.
Since….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More important, perhaps, oil constitutes a focal point in domestic Iraqi politics, and the control of natural resources by the state is a fundamental principle of the country's political ethos. Any interference by the occupation authority at this stage would have served as a rallying point for the opposition and opened a new front against the already battered US administration in Baghdad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So…
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This clear and well-defined policy does not mean that confusion has not surrounded US intentions and motives as far as concerns the oil sector in Iraq. The different opinions, statements and reports aired in Washington at the time of the war in the spring of 2003 did not help matters much. Conservative think tanks in Washington proposed several ideas that were well wide of the mark in terms of the Iraqis’ experience. Some called for the full privatization of the industry and opening it as much as possible to the international oil companies. Others advocated adopting the Alaska and Alberta Province models of distributing part of the oil revenue to the public through checks sent by mail. The State Department-sponsored Future of Iraq Project (Oil Policy Subgroup) also reached the conclusion that privatization is the way to save the country's oil industry. It even went a step further to blame the ills of the industry on nationalization and the public sector, ignoring completely the impact of the wars and sanctions. A more balanced study, which recognized the problems ahead and proposed more pragmatic solutions, was the joint study prepared by New York's Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute.
<span style='color: orange'>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war,</span> even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong. Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms. In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These two paragraphs, if you interpret them correctly, do not take any position towards Bushs motivations. (So at least is my opinion)
It states that conservative think tanks have focused around reestablishment of Iraqi oil industry (more or less realistically) and that US officials did talk openly about that matter and studies were made.
That is all and everything the article states. It is scientific, its not taking sides.
The highlighted sentence it the origin of the “myth” they author is referring to. He is taking this from the distance necessary for an objective analyst.
All the paragraph says is, that in fact theoretical discussions about a post-Saddam Iraq were numerous, and that this fact has inspired theories about Bushs intentions. That is true. You can decide for yourself whether those “map exercises” were purely academically or not.
It also states, that the projections were more that off the track.
I have a very similar example for such wrong projections at hand. I pay taxes for it. It’s the German reunion. The Government under Helmut Kohl pushed the reunion, as he wanted to become the one who teared down the wall.
I order to this, they told everybody the DDR is going to be a huge market and will develop to a new economic motor within 10 years. Everything will be perfect. Well, we had no war about it, but a disaster nonetheless.
To rush the negotiations, dire mistakes were made, like completely disregarding the desolate state of the economy. Later, mismanagement of unimaginable dimensions occurred. The results are still crippling our economy (among other things….)
Bush has many similarities in his zeal to achieve his personal quest.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
8. The oil ministry has taken a hammering during the war from smugglers, and is still suffering from them. Interesting information, but hardly a terrorist victory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime?
I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
9. Here is where it all gets very interesting. Oil production is at 80% of prewar levels, or so they claim. (12million/d compared to 15million/d) How this can be viewed as a victory for the terrorists is beyond me. Even if the supply of oil was brought up to prewar standards, Iraq still wouldnt be exporting, because the domestic market has grown 25% (15million/d compared to 20million/d).
Summary: What it looks like to me is that the Iraqi oil industry is operating at 80% of its prewar capacity, and while they are trying to improve that, its difficult because of security problems. Your claim that the Iraqi oil industry is not exporting is correct. Your assumption that its because of the terrorists I believe to be false. Even if things were 50% better, it still wouldnt be enough because the Iraqi domestic market is booming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That’s the part you refer to:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
According to Oil Minister Thamir Ghadhban, Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day. Prior to the war, gasoline consumption was 15mn liters/day while production capacity was 16mn liters/day. The US Army Corps of Engineers spent around $1.5bn on petroleum products purchases since May 2003. It is costing Iraq now around $200mn a month to import petroleum products, or $2.4bn a year, approximately 15% of the annual oil revenue. These imports are expected to continue for at least two more years, until new units are built in the refineries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of, it was 16 million litres per day, not 15.
Furthermore, there’s a small tad of difference you did not seem to notice, so let’s have a look into the tiny little bit of info you did not mention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who finds it? Who wants a cookie? No? I give you a hint:
3.8 million BARREL/day from before the Iran war, or 3.5 million BARREL/day before the embargo is a teeny tiny bit more that 20million LITERS/ a day
One Barrel is approximately 160 litres. Now take your calculator…
3.5 million barrel would give us 560 million litres PER DAY. Now compare that to your astonishing, whopping, admirable 16 million litres/day since 13 years.
Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years.
Great job! Mission accomplished.
Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ohhh candy, I love candy. Especially candycoated excursions into leftwing fact manipulation of the MM tradition demonstrated in 1.:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me too, thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only 2% given to Iraqi companies? Its those horrible greedy Westerners stealing it from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi companies just dying for a crack at helping the country... oh wait, the same article just said that all Iraq's oil professionals had jumped ship back in the 80's. It's pretty obvious that the reason only 2% of the contracts were awarded to Iraqi's because they dont have the massive companies employing thousands of skilled oil technicians and packing expensive equipment. This is merely a laughable attempt to make the US look shifty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question.
Really.
Next point. Just read the highlighted statement and tell me, do you really think that is justified? It is a neutral statement, no accusation and not taking side on any way. It states a fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the <span style='color:orange'>US authorities used <b>Iraqi oil revenueto </b>fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities.</span> A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next on, go for the numbers.
74% percent of IRAQI oil revenues was allocated in form of contracts to US companies
85% total for US and British companies, rendering 11% for British firms total.
Said 2% for Iraqi firms.
That leaves 13% total for reconstruction purposes.
That means, of the 1.5 bn dollars available of Iraqi oil revenues, 195 mn dollars for reconstruction purposes during the first 13 months after the war. (hope I didn’t ditch a null…)
That’s really astonishing. And a bit puzzling, considering that…
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the [color =orange]$18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid. [/color]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there were 18.4 billion Dollars of US funds allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction. Why did they not use it then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahaaa. Finally after a whole year!
More that 12 moth, they wasted time which was essential. Twelve month.<i> Before</i> the insurgency started!
Now, before you start on US aid that’s paid, so its not bad that they get money out of Iraq’s economy, I like to remind you of the income part a bit earlier.
3.5 nm barrel a day before Desert storm. Since 13 years.
That means we have roughly 4750 days under embargo, which means
16625 million barrel of projected extraction lost total during the last 13 years
Let’s take an price of lets say 35 USD per barrel
That brings us to a total of 581875 million UDS or 581 billion of total income lost since Desert storm.
For the purpose of completeness and to prevent you from further accusing me of “”left wing fact manipulation” (which is really amusing since I’m a conservative voter…)
Oil for food was set up late 1996, so lets give them whole 9 years.
9 years of 16 million litres/d, that makes up on:
3285 days for 16 million litres per day make up on:
52.560 million litres.
Transferred to barrels, (divide by 160) that would be about 328.5 million barrel total since `96
Lets take our 35 USD per barrel (which is steeply low imho)
This leads us to a round up of 11500 million Dollars income due to Oil for Food.
11.2 billion. Less than the amount the US have allocated as additional funding for reconstruction purposes .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Finally, when orders were given in the spring of 2004 to distribute funds to the Iraqi ministries, the security situation deteriorated and development halted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, as we see it was too late. You pointed out at several occasions in the past, that you do not understand the insurgents motivation.
Here you have it on one page. One year. One whole year, the US did nothing but stick their fingers in their noses.
Why they did not allocate the funding is up to your own imagination, I don’t care honestly, however, the situation was stagnant for 12 long months, in which the humanitarian situation was more than bad.
It was failure, like the first weeks in Baghdad when the US did fail to provide civil protection.
Those mistakes fed the insurgency until it grew to a point where it broke out.
It was a catastrophic mistake to allocate money to US firms, instead of Iraqi corporations and Iraqi government. Political leaders and opinion makers had facts to present and enough evidence for their intention, to show off the US as exploiting imperialists.
Like since the debate, or earlier debates started, you failed to understand my point, that I merely try to analyse the situation and make my assumptions based upon. I try to see the failures and the reasons. Who wins in the end does not really matter for me (except its nice to be right, like in the WMD debate…. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This little titbit of the US maintaining transparency and sovereignty of Iraqi oil slip your notice? Y'know, the whole thing about Brits and Yanks refusing to take certain measures, even if it slowed down oil facility reconstruction, to avoid being seen as theives?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It did not slip my attention, but might point you to the highlighted part in the paragraph you are referring to:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. <span style='color:orange'> In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully. </span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can try to stop smoking, but unless you actually DO, you still buy cigarettes.
When they want to avoid being accused fishy practices, they should achieve their goals of transparency.
You know its not that difficult to allocate money in an occupied nation. Its easy. You can do as you like. So when you say, that oil pump gets so much, and that one so much, and they get it.
Ok? Its not really hard to do because there are no bureaucrats and oppositions that delay actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree with what you said before about OPEC and falling oil prices. However I disagree with this statement here. Clearly their economy is not desolate, see those Chrenkoff links I provided earlier, and also refer to your article on oil - domestic demand for oil doesnt skyrocket because times are looking tough. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. I give the credit to a friend of mine who is a broker and I called him about the topic <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the economic part, I have gone into that far far up in this monster post.
Just in short, the numbers of Iraqi oil extraction are currently measured in litres/day, the competitors count in barrels….
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry - reporting Powell claiming Iraq had WMD's in no way constitutes preaching. Its big news - and they didnt take a side on it. If they did take a side, then you would here them reporting "Protestors have taken to the streets in their millions today to oppose the disarming of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, which intelligence agencies world wide believe has constructed and maintained massive WMD stockpiles in opposition to UN sanctions." I find it funny that you cant tell the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, Powell somehow reminded me of the Iraqi information minister trying to convince himself that its true what he’s talking there…poor fella. No really, it was annoying. WMD here, WMD there. WMD...did I tell you about the WMD by the way?
I almost stopped watching the news as I could not hear it anymore....
I have an acquaintance who is in directly and relatively deeply involved in politics of one of the federal states of Germany. He is thus directly in contact with European politics and has thus the opportunity to chat with people that travel a lot and meet important other people.
One of them is in the EU foreign ministry. That one has to tell much good about Mr, Powell , as he shall be an honest and credible man. Thus, Powell’s claims of the actual existence of the WMD gave the story a touch of truth, which would not have been there without him.
I did not count much for this, as I believed Powell, as a seasoned Military officer was doing his duty whether its right or wrong.
I still do not know if he was convinced himself or not, that has to be decided by the Historians, however, I now understand that he is actually an honest man, since his retirement speaks much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT I made an unworthy comment here turning that statement back on you - so to save moderators the time I've deleted it myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should PM it to me, I would be interested.
All I can say is, that you are wrong when you put me into a sceme.
I rethink my position regularly based on information acquire.
Mr. Bush is such an example:
When elected, I held this man for a bad joke, uneducated and clumsy, not able to tell the Taliban from a Boy-Group.
The first year also looked like my first impression was true. Absolutely nothing but hot blown air. It seemed like the most insignificant presidency since poor Jimmy Carter.
Then, the Twin Towers were attacked.
I saw a new Bush, confident competent (to an extend that he looked competent….)
He was right after the incident on screen, days afterwards on screen, still looking like in charge and up to the task.
Unlike our own Politicians which looked like some poor victims of rape after they realized that something like that could happen here too.
Bush seemed to have found his center.
Then, Afghanistan. Carefully planned, slowly taken on, perfectly executed.
Then, he started to call Saddam a supporter of fundamentalists… OK…
The WMD debate is the sad highlight of this charade, and his actions did not only damaged his own credibility in the word, but greatly diminished the USA’s reputation among their partners and allies.
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT!
here's the damn summary....
!EDIT!</span>
Well, in closure I want to express my personal point of view on the matter at hand.
It looks to me like the US have bitten off more than they can chew. Not direcly in military matters, but in economical.
Their anticipations of Iraqs economy were bloody wrong and their reconstruction efford will never go as planned. It has already startet so horribly and misorganized, that it can hardly come worse.
I can, as I said before, tell from own experience, that this reconstruction will take years and cost mega. Even without fighting in the country.
Also, If not finally mesures are taken to actually distribute the contracts to Iraqi companies mainly, the Industry will not really recover. All you will achieve is that more oil is flowing, however, it will not flow into Iraqs pockets.
The situation is promising in that way, that the US have refrained from establishing foreing oil companies in the country, which means that the oil is effectivly in Iraqs hands.
Yet, it must be determined how the New Government will handle the prizes.
One possibility might be, that an US supported Iraq would leave OPEC and start selling off oil at competing prizes, which would certainly lead to much lower overall oil prizes, since OPEC monopoly would be damadged.
Another prospective is, that the insurgency will go on and on, forcing the US to maintain their presence, which means a continiung finacial disaster for the US.
The only one profiting would be the arms industry, but since taxiation is neglectible atm.....
This scenario could result in a situation similar to vietnam, where finally the public support for the US government and military brakes down and the president is eventually forced to find a way out.
Then, well, either Iraq sinks into chaos and civil war (most likely) or a strong leader will emerge and create a sovereing, totalitarian regime. Both variants will most likely involve a fundamentalist touch.
However, such a government has prospects and possibilities.
Foreing companies most likely will wait with open arms for contracts and opportunities. They do already. That is, only in case the US do not try to sanction such a regime.
In that case, it will be isolated and dry out like Afghanistan under Taliban reign.
Now, lets go back to the topic of torture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some of you are practising Christians. I assume you have a depreciating position towards homosexuality. What would you feel if you were forced to touch another mans genitals? Or take them into your mouth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesnt happen. That's what you cannot understand here. All the torture methods you have outlined above are not practised to that extent by US interrogators. I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>!EDIT!
The methods I talk about here are sleep deprivation and the additional methods mentioned in my last post about torture. I do not mean the ones in my description about physical torture. I just do not want any misunderstandings about that.
!EDIT!</span>
I’ve seen photos of several prisoners standing doggystyle on their fellow detainees. That’s more of your taste?
The methods I described in short are trained to specialised military personnel in all NATO member states. There is an international military school that organizes interrogation seminaries to members of SF units.
These methods are trained there. That has been thoroughly discussed recently in Germany because of several reports of recruits that had been touched a bit roughly during their training. Nothing special, but since we have a draft army, some of the recruits had a problem with it.
In that context, Germanys participation in interrogation method training was discussed.
During that training, all the things I summed up are applied to the participation soldiers.
All of them.
However, it is regulated to an extent where it is not harmful. It is controlled. Yet, even under simulated circumstances, the trainers had tendencies to exaggerate and even among really hard SF- soldiers many soldiers had felt the need to break off the courses, in isolated cased it even came to the point where the soldiers collapsed.
The truth is, that even under simulated circumstances, the interrogators are in great temptation do “overdo it”
You say those methods are not used to full extend? Says who? The official orders?
The Pentagon statement?
Again, I’m not against such training as it is necessary to prepare soldiers to what they can experience, and I understand the necessity to apply enough pressure on resilient enemies.
With this I want to explain, that the power of an interrogator is often a great temptation to “do it properly”. Even under lab conditions.
<a href='http://www.prisonexp.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.prisonexp.org/</a>
This is a link to an experiment. It was scheduled to last for 14 days. It had to be aborted after 6 days because of severe sings of depressive psychosis’s and various other traumata among the prisoners. Also, it came to violent behaviour among the wardens against the prisoners.
That was an experiment. They played a game. They were normal people volunteered for this, and it turned very real, within 6 days.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I fail to see why mentioning the effects of sleep deprivation up to the 3rd day is relevant given that the US interrogators do not do that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I stated above, the numbers up there are under lab-conditions and providing voluntary deprivation. As I said the effect of night six can be achieved far quicker in combination with the other methods. If you need it quick, deny water for 12 hours while standing in the sun.
You will have delusion and overall flatness of metabolic reactions within that time.
That is why the methods are combined. The whole method is only effective when you reach the point of sleep deprivation psychosis. That’s the deal. If you don’t reach that point, its fruitless and a waste of time.
So, rest assured, they have taken the appropriate measures.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, no US military interrogator is doing it in any way harmful to the prisoner, why are you mentioning it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are pictures of soldiers posing over a dead body? A freaking dead body? Why do you think he died? Heart attack?
You are one of them accusing others of playing down the insurgents crimes and highlight only US deeds, while yourself you try to convince us of their harmless methods.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no argument about whether American troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners you have to be an absolute nut to believe otherwise. I dont even wanna see those pictures we were never shown, that were considered too vile for public consumption. Mock drownings in Bagram? 8 dead of 'natural causes'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one here is arguing that. The only question is whether it was a once off occurance, or a policy. The bulk of evidence rests with the "once off freak occurance" and as such, I sleep easy at night.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, lets put it this way. Like I mentioned earlier, we had “isolated cases” of young recruits got “tortured” by their drill instructors in order to prepare them for an eventual assignment.
That is imho important, however it was not officially intended to be trained to normal recruits.
The incidents were not tragic. Simulated kidnapping and being tied up in a ark room for several hours. Things like that.
It was declared, this happenings were “isolated cases”. However, looking back into reports from recruits that did claim to be treated improperly in that context over the past decade showed, that Isolated cases happened almost weakly throughout the republic…..It was never ever official policy however.
IMO no , because in one way or another, USA and other developed countries with their economic politics make the rich people richer and the poor people "poorer" (fricking english <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->" ).
Put yourselves in the situation of the Terrorist : your home are destroyed , your nation divided , extreme poverty. These people can only find a way out of reality in the religion. Therefore they become religious extremists.
And every religion wich goes extremist, either Cristianism (=>Crusades) , Jews (=> Mossad ) or Islam (Terrorist in Irak) , ARE BAD.
Developed countries are currently putting everything together in order to make (with or without intention) to make more terrorists.
Poor People have its limits , and when they get an AK47 be aware.
This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power.
Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man?
The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo.
Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow. just...wow.
You're suggesting that Saddam was the victim in all of this? Laughable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam?
The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living.
If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain.
The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today.
Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. That is after 25 years of US foreign politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't really think that the embargo would have been dropped as long as Saddam continued to stay in power and play games with weapons inspectors, did you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime?
I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's a parallel analogy. Car bombings in a city do not equate to being unable to defend refineries, drilling platforms/pumps, or pipelines. Of course there are security holes, but I don't believe they're quite as bad as you would have me. I would look up statistics for how many attacks have been aimed at the oil infrastructure over the past year and a half, but I'm too lazy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
...It also states, that the projections were more that off the track.
I have a very similar example for such wrong projections at hand. I pay taxes for it. It’s the German reunion. The Government under Helmut Kohl pushed the reunion, as he wanted to become the one who teared down the wall.
I order to this, they told everybody the DDR is going to be a huge market and will develop to a new economic motor within 10 years. Everything will be perfect. Well, we had no war about it, but a disaster nonetheless.
To rush the negotiations, dire mistakes were made, like completely disregarding the desolate state of the economy. Later, mismanagement of unimaginable dimensions occurred. The results are still crippling our economy (among other things….)
Bush has many similarities in his zeal to achieve his personal quest.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is possible that this war is being mismanaged. However, whether it will turn into a disaster remains to be seen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years.
Great job! Mission accomplished.
Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, you're not an army strategist, nor a logistics expert, nor an international relations guru. You fail to realize something - if the US would have focused on getting oil infrastructure fixed "before the insurgency started", whatever that means, you know we would be universally criticised by the international community, and all support would be dropped and the rest of the coalition would have pulled out in the face of ignoring other, more necessary infrastructure (read: electricity, running water). Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, and simply naive. Why do you think many countries encourage foreign companies to invest in their country's economy by building factories, etc there? Tax revenue, as well as employment. Giving a nation contracts that it can't fulfill because of lack of human resources won't do anything, just delay the rebuilding. To be honest, the quickest way to do stuff is to rebuild it for them.
Let's put it this way. After the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, would you prefer for aid organizations to give the Sri Lankan government their monetary contributions and said, "go, i wish you well." No! The aid organizations already have the manpower and the supplies to help out immediately, instead of trying for a theoretical "natives gain the 'most'' (which really isn't the most anyway).
Gahh, that post is too long, I'll address the rest later.
You're suggesting that Saddam was the victim in all of this? Laughable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I say that? Where? don't turn my words around. I say, everybody would have done. plain and simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don't really think that the embargo would have been dropped as long as Saddam continued to stay in power and play games with weapons inspectors, did you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As the article stated, is is unclear why Saddam did uphold the doubts about his WMD capacity. My guess is he wanted to keep the possibility in the back of our head to protect himself from an attack. Like the israelis did, before they showed their hand in Jom Kippur conflict.
Whether the embargo would have gone on....well that's not the point. Point is, that foreing involvent crippled this countries economy. Thats what the article is about. Again, it does not matter whos fault it is. Its the course of action.
Whos fault is it that Saddam attacked the Ayatollahs?
Who is responsible for Kuwait? Why did the rellationship to the US fall apart?
Find your own answeres, you will nt find it in this particular article.
What the article tell us is, that the US are now struggling with a destroyed economy which they have caused in the first place indirectly with their sanctions. I guess you must love the irony.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think it's a parallel analogy. Car bombings in a city do not equate to being unable to defend refineries, drilling platforms/pumps, or pipelines. Of course there are security holes, but I don't believe they're quite as bad as you would have me. I would look up statistics for how many attacks have been aimed at the oil infrastructure over the past year and a half, but I'm too lazy <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hehe, did you read the numbers? thats not achieved by stealing office equipment you know?
Theft and industrial crime to this extend is a very large operation. It requires insiders and much cash to wash hands. If it is so easy to undermine the sites, you cant speak of security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is possible that this war is being mismanaged. However, whether it will turn into a disaster remains to be seen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, same I heard back in WMD days. I'm curious too....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately, you're not an army strategist, nor a logistics expert, nor an international relations guru. You fail to realize something - if the US would have focused on getting oil infrastructure fixed "before the insurgency started", whatever that means, you know we would be universally criticised by the international community, and all support would be dropped and the rest of the coalition would have pulled out in the face of ignoring other, more necessary infrastructure (read: electricity, running water). Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where is the logic in this?
If you had fixes stuff when it was possible without fighting and bomb raids, why should international support stopped? They did not support you anyway! Exept the British and some small fries in the EU hoping for good relations with Washington, nobody supported the war or the reconstruction efford. That is a polemic speach, I know but in general, all the financially strong nations denied support.
They also denied support afterwards, because no contracts on reconstruction were available. Bush told those old Europeans where to put the middle finger, after they did express their concernes, ripping apart the European Union in the process of building the "coalition fo the willing" consiting of not so old Europeans...
That is diferent now, since Bush has realized that wihtout financial help and support within the UN, the whole thing will blow up. Now the old Europeans show Bush what to do with the middle finger.
That starts with simple things like the Embargo. It could not be lifted without France or Russia which could just kick in their Veto. Bang, no oil export for you Mr Bush.
By, "before the insurgency" started, I mean 12 whole long month of nothing. One year is a long time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Construction doesn't happen overnight, you know. And Iraq was in a **** condition before the war anyway. So your rosy picture of what the US could have done better - I don't buy any of it.[/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are examples showing the opposite. Japan after being forcefully opened started a technological and sociological revolution, from an feudal agryculture to a modern, imperialistic industry nation. Within less than 40 years total, they managed to oppose Soviet power and became the dominating force in the Asian waters. All done by directly and intelligently allocation of fundings to key industries.
Take Germany after WW2. Within 5 years, Germany was overtaking all other European economies, after being battered to oblivion. This was the most extensive destruction that ever happened to a nation in history, till the present day.
Yet, it was rebuild with US suppport from scratch within years. Why? Don't know, maybe the US had a better President?
I know for sure however, that they did not sit on the money they had at their disposal while there was not electicity and water available...
Both coutries did not have any important ressources like Oil on their own by the way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true, and simply naive. Why do you think many countries encourage foreign companies to invest in their country's economy by building factories, etc there? Tax revenue, as well as employment. Giving a nation contracts that it can't fulfill because of lack of human resources won't do anything, just delay the rebuilding. To be honest, the quickest way to do stuff is to rebuild it for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course. sure. Go tell that anybody involved in developmet politics and he will die loughing before your feet. Then we'll again talk about being naive...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's put it this way. After the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, would you prefer for aid organizations to give the Sri Lankan government their monetary contributions and said, "go, i wish you well." No! The aid organizations already have the manpower and the supplies to help out immediately, instead of trying for a theoretical "natives gain the 'most'' (which really isn't the most anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tell you something about Sri Lanka and the other parts.
In Germany, there are about 300million Euro being collected I dont know the number right now. does not matter. That is public aid only, not including the governmental aid.
Now, after several weeks, the aid organisations recommended not to spend any more money, as the bad situation there does not allow transportation of all the supplys and they rot in the sun at the airport where they were transported in.
Then, you can go on and write about 60 to 80 % of the money off since it goes down the drain of corruption and bureocracy.
Thats partly because many of these "aid organisation" are dubious, the big ones being simply slothy and inefficient.
To push in the cash will bring nothing. It is a waste of money.
The only thing you can do is: go there, take the money with you, press it into the hand of the apporiate person and overwatch him doing good with it.
The same thing goes for Iraq. Or Afghanistan.
You must allocate the fundings, then you must allocate the work to the people and you must overwatch the progress.
Ony these three aspects in combination will do the trick.
Precise, quick and unbureocratic allocation of money, local work, supervision by experts.
You cant go on an build some plants for them. Thats not going to work. Never did.
Also, if you ever want Iraqi economy to be truly independent and self sufficien, you must strengthen it now. You can only do so by gicing them contracts. If you do not do this, Iraq will become a third world country exporting raw matrials until they are depleted. As soon as this happens the country is basically dead.
darn...its 2:40 CET, im tired and I have to go to work tomorrow. You can keep any spelling errors you find.
As I stated, you have to overwatch the prossess personall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back up your statements that aid organizations are inefficient <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'l take some time, im at work and my week is going to be hard.
Lets just say for the moment, I have kept in memory some big scandals about the red cross an other Aid Organisations. They are buissness like everythign else, and thus, some people earn more that others.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It states nothing about the condition of Iraqs oil industry, but of its state of development. That roughly means how much production capability is available compared to the resources available.
It is only stating that Saddam was trying to achieve a significant increase in production capabilities, to gain an advantage over his competitors, but failed due to the Iraq/Iran war in the first place, the conflict with around Kuwait and the embargo in the second place, taking effect until the present day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how is this relevant to the current management to the Iraqi oil? The system has been degrading for nearly 30 years now. All that I care about is how they are going returning it to prewar levels, at which point I will consider it an unmigitated success. They havent done so yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This part explains that all the income was used to preserve the regime and its power.
Nothing uncommon I guess. What do you expect? Saddam had an exaggerating lifestyle, but the most money went to the military and law enforcement, to prevent uprisings. His back was on the wall his enemies numerous, the walls were closing. What do you expect from such a man? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, its nothing I wouldnt expect - an evil man in a corner is an ugly thing. But we are still discussing the Iraqi oil situation in terms that have no relevance to the two things that concern me: oil situation prewar, oil situation postwar.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The last sentence states that the situation was particularly dire during the time of embargo.
Corruption is, lets face it a common thing all over the world. Whether it’s packed as low taxation for rich supporters or a special discount on your new Mercedes, corruption is omnipresent. I have seen a statistic about how common corruption is in the various countries on this worlds and I’ve seen my country ( Germany ) under the top 20….<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Low taxation for rich supporters is corruption? You do realise that lowering taxes for the wealthy is a tried and tested method for reinvigorating the economy and driving economic growth?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Oil industry was developing rapidly due to the first 5 years plan long before any war broke out.
The economical development was positive and the standard of living for the Iraqi people ( unless not politically opposing) was very high. Iraq was on its way to become the most important power in the region. Those were the glory days you mention. The days of Saddam….<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that - any honest interview with an Iraqi almost always includes wishful harking back to the 70's. But those times are gone, those production levels are long past, and the industry has degraded significantly. That is why you discussing high output and development in the 70's is complete irrelevant. I also find it questionable that you make insinuations to the effect of "Saddam isnt really that bad, he just got the wrong end of the US foreign policy stick".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil industry was not going a bad way before the US showed up. Even after the Iran war, it almost sustained the pre-war level. The second five year development plan caused the industry to recover and reach 3.5 barrel/day
It was damadged by war, but a second development plan was underway, yet interrupted by desert storm.
Here we go. Still quite good export rates after the war. Yet, the economy was severely damaged. At that point, Saddam was searching for a compensation for his losses in the war, and his eye fell on Kuwait<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, the US may have supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, but those two nations have hated each other for a very long time and continue to do so. Its not like he would never have considered it without US imput. Egging a man on, and actually forcing him to fight are two completely different things. Egging him on was a bad idea, but lets not just lump the blame on the US as seems to be the trend here. Again, irrelevant to the current situation of restoring oil to prewar levels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I personally have not much info about the Oil for food program, as it did never really cought my attention. If you have some detail I would be glad to read.
The article states:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2111195/' target='_blank'>Slate MSN</a> has probably the most lenient view on the UN as far as the Oil for Food scandal goes, but they still cover the problem well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From here it went downhill. The invasion of Kuwait was silently tolerated, until the Saudis started to get nervous about Iraqs expansionistic behaviour. The US realized that their Son of a bi**h was out of control. They had to decide…. Saudis or Saddam?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? They didnt have to choose between the Saudi's or Saddam. They already had oil contracts with Kuwait, the Saudi's weren't attacking anyone. It wasnt 50 50 who do we attack, it was defending American oil interests and regional stability by throwing Saddam out. Over a quarter of a million Middle Eastern troops joined in on the venture. Your choice did not exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The rest is history. The 13 years of embargo had devastating effects on both the economy and subsequently the people’s standard of living. If you sting the Kings butt, the peasants feel the pain.
The effects on the industry are shown below. The effect is the state in which the industry is up today.
Iraq, when compared to its competitors is like Mexico compared to California. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The kings butt didnt get stung - he had heaps of ways around the oil for food program. But now he had an excuse to carry on with some economic warfare against those in his country that didnt quite agree. The OFF program was specifically designed to prevent the peasants feeling the pain, and it failed miserably at that because of corruption within the UN.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is after 25 years of US foreign politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I cannot express just how little I care about these 25 years of US foreign politics. Bush has stated, as shown in my sig, that for over 25 years the US has been getting it wrong. You also make the mistake of simply declaring or insinuating that the blame lies solely with the Americans, as if everything would have been peachy without those dirty interfering yankees.
The only reason to refer to 25 years of previous American politics is to somehow learn from it. You are dredging it up here when it has no relation or bearing upon the subject matter, and as such I am convinced you are not seeking to educate, but seeking to hurl mud. Roosevelt encountered you and your kind, and had this little piece for them:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
That sums up, for me, the entire left wing that bitterly opposed the Iraq liberation, and now whines likes schoolgirls that everything isnt perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here you see the program was actually used to improve the standard of living. Well understandable, since Saddam was struggling for support to remain in power. The plan to bleed him out backfired because Saddam allocated supplies to the civilians and successfully blamed the US for the poverty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. So wrong. It wasnt used to that effect - that was the stated aim of the project, not the result. Here we see the way you manipulate information to present Saddam in a positive light, and the Americans in a negative light. You have absolutely no idea what was involved in the Oil for Food program, as was clearly demonstrated by your reply, but that didnt slow you for a second - and you wonder why I called your credibility into question? The country had been going to hell ever since the 80's when the Iran war started, then the thrashing Saddam recieved over Kuwait made things pretty bad. However, he managed to crush the Shi'ite revolution, and was firmly established in Iraq. However, the sanctions and embargo's for so called "dual use" items that had been put on Iraq before the first Gulf War stayed. These sanctions were put in place by the international community with support from the rest of the Middle East, which had provided nearly a quarter of a million troops to throw Saddam out of Kuwait, and wanted to see him leashed.
These sanctions continued up until somewhere in 1996 when a report was released showing that the banning of many medicine and food imports was having a dramatic impact on the population, and Saddam was using shortages created by the embargos to eliminate his middle class enemies. So the UN proposed the Oil For Food program whereby Saddam could sell oil to certain countries, and in return the UN would give him food and medicine. Saddam had been finding ways around the embargos for a while now, but the Oil for Food program was just one more way of geting around, and lets face it, the UN isnt know for its invulnerability to corruption. So he rorted the hell out of the program, and while it did help some Iraqi's, the clear benefactor was Saddam, who made billions from the scam.
No one tried to bleed Saddam out, they just didnt want him to buy anything that could be used for another military strike. The US and the international community didnt want the Iraqi's to suffer for their leader, so tried to find away around. They made the mistake of using the United Nations, and the inevitable corruption ruined it.
This stands in direct contrast to your claims made above. You claimed that Saddam allocated resources to his civilians, and then blamed the Americans for poverty. I am quite confident that not only are you wrong, but that you didnt know it was true either, it just sounded like a plausible explanation and you threw it up in Saddam's defence anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here you show that you lack knowledge about the region. Fuel is cheap in Middle Eastern countries.
Even in countries that do not have extensive oil reserves like Egypt, fuel and cars are cheap like hell.
They buy old models which usually take their way from Europe over the Eastern European countries and several owners to the middle east.
Egypt is a relatively poor country, yet the people have cars en masse and driving around in the tourists centres all day and night serving as taxis for tourist too lazy to walk to the beach.
To acquire a car is for most people a necessity, since there are few public means of transportation. The ones who cannot afford one on their own drive in groups.
Since years, no cars had been imported to Iraq. The need for the must be dire.
In all intents and purposes, a car is a Mr Everybody’s commodity in the area, but you can assume that during the embargo, fuel was mainly distributed to the military and the few privileged.
Besides you need to replace military vehicles destroyed during the war, since the new police and military forces must me mobile.
That’s the infamous Third World police unit. A truck and 3 Kalashnikovs.
But lets have a closer look.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here, I demonstrate that not only is my knowledge about the region sound, but that you are capable of proving my point in your rebuttal. I argued that increased use of fuel by the domestic sector pointed to an increase in economic activity. You argued, entertainingly too might I add, that the Iraqi's merely went out and bought a whole stack of cars after Saddam fell, and because they're old cars, they guzzle fuel. But then you destroy your arguement by using the Egypt example, pointing out that fuel use there is high because they all drive cars as taxis. <b>A taxi is a domestic, revenue generating service</b>, it a part of the economy. These Iraqi's arent buying cheap cars and then driving around the desert like yahoo's, they, like the Egyptians, buy them and use them for financial reasons. Iraqi's are not crazy, nor are they rich. They might have cheap oil and cheap cars, but they dont spend all day racing each other and visiting their neighbours 600km away. Beggars and jobless men dont drive cars around willy nilly. I stand on what I consider a very solid point - the increased demand on fuel in the domestic sector points to economic growth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In The BRD (Republic of Germany), on one day approximately 17187500 liters of fuel are burnt by civil vehicles ONLY. That was 1989.
Since 1990, roughly <b>8 cars every minute </b>were added to that huge amount of consumers.
In Iraq, we speak about totals that are so insignificant in comparison. In addition to that, you must divide the total consumption between demands of Iraqi law enforcement and utility equipment.
Iraq has no nuclear plants. They have no coal. Their energy production supposedly is based of fuel plants, so consider that fuel is needed to generate that bit of energy which is available.
So do not make assumptions about the “drastically increasing market” unless you understand the whereabouts of the numbers provided.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did you type this? This has absolutely no relevance to anything I have said. Law enforcement vehicles have always existed in Iraq, utilities have always existed, fuel has always been used to generate power. It was like this before the war, why should it be any different now? Are you trying to claim that suddenly I'm supposed to assume that ballooning oil demand has to be attributed to something other than the economic sector?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I had acted like you accuse me I had edited that part and not provided a link. Please cut your little efforts to undermine my credibility.
Lets go into that particular paragraph, and by the way we take into account some of those preceding it…<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You provided a link, and a whole stack of quotes to support your viewpoint, but amazingly left out everything that didnt quite fit with your "Americans are teh evil" viewpoint. If I give you an article, I bite the bullet and take care to point out where it disagrees with me, just so people dont think I'm trying to play both ends against the middle.
However, quoting the paragraph preceeding the paragraph above isnt going to save you here. There is no relation between the two. That has no bearing on what that article plainly stated - the "its a war for oil" is myth. Your best hope is to claim thats merely their opinion, but never the less it is there, in black and white, in an article you are using to support your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you see the initial plans proposed to install an international team to overview and direct the reconstruction efford. The plan included Iraqi advisers to participate. It would have made sense, since they know the country, know the people, and it would give the Iraqis confidence that their interrets are properly represented.
However, it was decided to keep it in US and British hands. Subsequently, the demands for transparency and control over the allocated funding were not met. That is where every revenue officer will start smelling fishes.
There is where the Anti-American opposition in Iraq had a target. It was simply stupid. It could have been avoided. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here you make the leap the writers of the article implied by couldnt articulate. The original plan was abandoned, and a set of regulations was set up to ensure that the American and British officials maintained transparency. These transparency regulations were not <b>fully</b> met. So these conditions were met up to a point, but not to the point these guys would like - I would really, really like to know exactly what about these regulations that they thought werent followed completely up to par. But unfortunately they do not elaborate, which makes me relatively confident that there are no shocking and widespread breachs of protocol here, no rampant rorting and backdoor deals, just regulations they thought werent followed stringently enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These two paragraphs, if you interpret them correctly, do not take any position towards Bushs motivations. (So at least is my opinion)
It states that conservative think tanks have focused around reestablishment of Iraqi oil industry (more or less realistically) and that US officials did talk openly about that matter and studies were made.
That is all and everything the article states. It is scientific, its not taking sides.
The highlighted sentence it the origin of the “myth” they author is referring to. He is taking this from the distance necessary for an objective analyst.
All the paragraph says is, that in fact theoretical discussions about a post-Saddam Iraq were numerous, and that this fact has inspired theories about Bushs intentions. That is true. You can decide for yourself whether those “map exercises” were purely academically or not.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The highlighted sentence is indeed the origin of the myth the author is referring to, and that myth, as you highlighted, is the public conception that this is a war for oil. I cant help but see this as an advantage point to me - prewar debate promulgated the myth that this was a war for oil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do you want to undermine terrorist’s networks and defend yourself from suiciders, when you are unable to protect your most important strategic elements from organised crime?
I did not post this to tell you whether bin laden kicks **** or not, dam it, understand this. It was to answer your question for evidence about a lack in security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt say that there were no security problems, I said that the idea that security is non existant is garbage. Clearly the US has had, and continues to have, problems with terrorists and criminals, but you make it sound as if they are overwhelmed and completely unable to function, which just isnt the case. Security isnt a disaster in Iraq, but its a big problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of, it was 16 million litres per day, not 15. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are of course completely right. The Iraqi oil sector is operating at 75% efficency compared to prewar, not 80%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, there’s a small tad of difference you did not seem to notice, so let’s have a look into the tiny little bit of info you did not mention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(1976-80) which resulted in an increase in production capacity to 3.8mn b/d in 1979,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq currently consumes 20mn liters/day of gasoline, producing 12mn liters/day and importing 8mn liters/day<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who finds it? Who wants a cookie? No? I give you a hint:
3.8 million BARREL/day from before the Iran war, or 3.5 million BARREL/day before the embargo is a teeny tiny bit more that 20million LITERS/ a day
One Barrel is approximately 160 litres. Now take your calculator…
3.5 million barrel would give us 560 million litres PER DAY. Now compare that to your astonishing, whopping, admirable 16 million litres/day since 13 years.
Besides, 80 percent of prewar levels, since… more… that… two… years.
Great job! Mission accomplished.
.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irrelevant. The lot. I dont care what they could handle before a few months before the Iraq war. I am debating about prewar and afterwar, nothing else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now you will say it’s the insurgent fault because the prevent it. Yet I might remember you that they had plenty of time before the insurgency began, but wasted it, but I will go into that later on<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The looting was rampant insurgency or no. To claim that they wasted it seems to be arguing from a position of ignorance. The oil industry was a priority, and your own article claims the CPA focused on it throughout 2003. They failed to achieve their goal, as you bolded in your quote - but the article doesnt detail why they failed or who is to blame. Definately not good though, you are correct there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you plan on reconstructing a country, what is the logical way to do so? If you want to rebuild a nation, should you give contracts to their own economy or to YOUR own economy? Simple question.
Really. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I state - you cannot give oil industry rebuilding contracts to non existant companies with non existant professionals and non existant equipment. The oil professionals in Iraq jumped ship a long time ago, machinery was run down and spare parts extremely limited. The fact is that if they could have handed the contracts to Iraqi's, they would have. They didnt because there wasnt a plethora of Iraqi companies lining up. You know how many lesbian strippers we have working at my surgery? Not many. Is that because a) there are millions of lesbian strippers lining up daily for a job but my employer is bigotted and refuses to hire them or b) because there aint that many lesbian strippers looking for a job in the vet industry? Your article cleverly implied that the Americans were withholding contracts from begging Iraqi's, and you fell for it headfirst.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that while the <span style='color:orange'>US authorities used <b>Iraqi oil revenueto </b>fund US firms, it withheld financial resources from the Iraqi authorities.</span> A study published last September by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch (IRW) suggests that the CPA awarded US firms 74% of the value of the $1.5bn in contracts paid for with Iraqi funds and together US and UK companies received 85%. Iraqi firms, by contrast, received just 2% of the value.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AHA. Lookie what we have here. Its the IRW - everybody wave to Mr George Soros, the man who said that Bush reminded him of the Nazi's, and that defeating him in the past election was the most important issuing facing the world. Surely this 100% Soros funded thinktank focusing on Iraqi Revenue will avoid bias while studying the guilty, money grubbing CPA barstards. But alas, US depravity knows no bounds, and IRW is sorry to report that transparency is non existant, all the money is being given to the US while the Iraqi's starve, and the sky is indeed falling.
But good Lord I'm glad you brought this to my attention, the hilarity starts now. <a href='http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/092404.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a> is the beginning. I wondered were your article was sourcing its information on the transgressions and errors of the CPA, and now I know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The CPA consistently failed to be transparent by not releasing the names of companies awarded contracts paid for with Iraqi funds. Although information was available about the recipients of U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts, until recently, there was no publicly available information about which companies were being paid with Iraqi oil revenues. This information was finally made available in an appendix released by the CPA-IG in August 2004, which provides information about the use of Iraqi funds to pay contracts valued at more than $5 million.8 That chart is reproduced in Appendix 1 of this report.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we discover those massive transparency breaches CEES had uncovered - the Americans withheld for, gasp, several months before releasing the names of the companies being paid with Iraqi money. Is it transparency? Not really - but neither is it a cloak and dagger affair like they attempted to paint it. The rest of the report is a sledging of everything the US and Iraqi authorities attempt
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Next on, go for the numbers.
74% percent of IRAQI oil revenues was allocated in form of contracts to US companies
85% total for US and British companies, rendering 11% for British firms total.
Said 2% for Iraqi firms.
That leaves 13% total for reconstruction purposes.
That means, of the 1.5 bn dollars available of Iraqi oil revenues, 195 mn dollars for reconstruction purposes during the first 13 months after the war. (hope I didn’t ditch a null…)
That’s really astonishing. And a bit puzzling, considering that…<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not puzzling at all, they just confused you. There was 1.5 billion dollars made available for private reconstruction efforts. Of that 1.5 billion, which is small potatoes really in the Iraqi economy, it was explaining the breakdown of who got what. The Iraqi private firms didnt get much - but I explained why above. I deny their claim that the US withheld money from Iraqi authorities. In reading their IRW report, I found it entertaining that the "killer" blows were all unsourced. Some of what they reported about sloppy financial management must have had some basis in truth, but most revealing was that no where was it claimed that the American's were stealing money from the Iraqi's, oil money or otherwise. It may have complained about how it was handled, security and reporting measures, but at no stage was it suggested that the US were pillaging.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Meanwhile, about $1.5bn has been spent on the reconstruction of upstream and downstream facilities, with the majority of the work being carried out in the south. However, most of the [color =orange]$18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet, despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid. [/color]
So there were 18.4 billion Dollars of US funds allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction. Why did they not use it then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Are they serious? Do they have the slightest clue how contracts are allocated? You dont take 18.4 billion dollars, hurl it into the air and watch companies scurrying around fixing things. Spending 1.5 billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction money was always going to be a little bit simpler than spending almost 13 times that amount, and as of September 8th 2004 over 1 billion dollars of that 18.4 billion had already been spent, and 100 million more of that money was being spent every week. First they spent the Iraqi money, then they started spending their own. Whats wrong with that? Both are going to be used up eventually - these people are nothing but whiners, seeking every nitty gritty thing they can to complain about. There were reallocations of that money towards increased security to be honest, but over 1/3 still remained earmarked for water facilities and electricity, and was and is being spent at a rate comensurate with the demand from companies willing to brave the security concerns and reconstruct.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The oil sector has been no exception. The record shows that very few funds, if any, were appropriated to the Ministry of Oil during the first 12 months after the war. There were Iraqi funds available to the CPA, but these were not used until it transferred power to the Iraqi government in June 2004. In fact, the CPA had a surplus of around $8bn at end 2003 which it kept in its coffers instead of disbursing it to the ministries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahaaa. Finally after a whole year!
More that 12 moth, they wasted time which was essential. Twelve month.<i> Before</i> the insurgency started!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This didnt strike you as a little strange? The sole source of income in Iraq, the very basis of its economy, supposedly the main reason for the war according to the tinfoil hat brigade and the CPA starved it of funds for an entire year? Unless you consider the US stark, raving lunatics, you'd have to smell something fishy here. First off, the CPA deliberately achieved a surplus because they needed cash with which to float the following budget. You cannot spend all your money, then hand over the job to the Iraqi's and leave them nothing to work with. They might have money allocated to them from the government, but that money is generated throughout the year, and thus the money is not available at the beginning of the year, hence the surplus to enable the Iraqi's to spend at the start of the year.
Second, the funding for the Iraqi oil ministry was done off budget. This was cleverly concealed in a very secret place where few can find it. Luckily - Marine01 is a l33t haxor and hacked his way to the <a href='http://www.iraqcoalition.org/budget/2003budget.pdf' target='_blank'>CPA website displaying the 2003 budget</a>, and lo, we discover that the Iraqi oil ministry was to be funded "Operational and capital expenditure to be funded through extra realised revenues. Over $1 billion of capital expenditure to be
funded off-budget."
I would have thought the idea that the US simply refused to fund the Iraq Oil ministry would have been clearly insane - but not to everyone obviously. I hope thats cleared that up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now, before you start on US aid that’s paid, so its not bad that they get money out of Iraq’s economy, I like to remind you of the income part a bit earlier.
3.5 nm barrel a day before Desert storm. Since 13 years.
That means we have roughly 4750 days under embargo, which means
16625 million barrel of projected extraction lost total during the last 13 years
Let’s take an price of lets say 35 USD per barrel
That brings us to a total of 581875 million UDS or 581 billion of total income lost since Desert storm.
For the purpose of completeness and to prevent you from further accusing me of “”left wing fact manipulation” (which is really amusing since I’m a conservative voter…)
Oil for food was set up late 1996, so lets give them whole 9 years.
9 years of 16 million litres/d, that makes up on:
3285 days for 16 million litres per day make up on:
52.560 million litres.
Transferred to barrels, (divide by 160) that would be about 328.5 million barrel total since `96
Lets take our 35 USD per barrel (which is steeply low imho)
This leads us to a round up of 11500 million Dollars income due to Oil for Food.
11.2 billion. Less than the amount the US have allocated as additional funding for reconstruction purposes . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea why you brought this up. Again I cant see the relevance. I did get a chuckle out of the conservative voter bit, and I found it a little weird that you claimed that 11.2 billion was less than the 18.4 billion the US allocated to reconstruction - but we can discuss this when you explain to me why this is relevant at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, as we see it was too late. You pointed out at several occasions in the past, that you do not understand the insurgents motivation.
Here you have it on one page. One year. One whole year, the US did nothing but stick their fingers in their noses.
Why they did not allocate the funding is up to your own imagination, I don’t care honestly, however, the situation was stagnant for 12 long months, in which the humanitarian situation was more than bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm telling you that claim is patently insane, and I want more proof then just their word on it. I'm not going to leave it to my imagination - I need to see solid figures demonstrating that the US could spend money, and simply didnt, despite no insurgency standing in their way, and that that money was needed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It was failure, like the first weeks in Baghdad when the US did fail to provide civil protection. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? The first weeks of fall of Baghdad went fine. You realise that in military invasions, merely preventing your own troops from looting is a major achievement, much less preventing the civilian population from looting. This is one of those complaints that looks good on the surface but becomes inane upon close inspection. Establishing law and order immediately upon entering a large, hostile city like Baghdad shouldnt have even been expected. You remember that big disaster, with up to 200,000 items looted from Baghdad Museum? Grand total lost items? 17. The rest had been moved by the curators before the war started for security. Yeah, looting was a <b>huge</b> problem, how silly of those Americans for not stopping it immediately. Everyone knows that once you take the city, you just throw on a white MP armband and saunter around laying down the long arm of the law on looters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Those mistakes fed the insurgency until it grew to a point where it broke out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhhhh - no. Thats a common misconception by the vast majority of leftists who still believe that there is rational, logical reasons behind the insurgent mind, that they only strike because they have suffered personal loss, that they are only responding in violence because they hope for a better future etc. And its wrong. As demonstrated by an American reporter who actually went to Iraq, who talked to people in the Sunni Triangle:
<a href='http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Index/Week-Dec_13-19_2004.html' target='_blank'>Journey into the Soul of Iraq</a>
Its on the right hand side, a five part series - I think you'll find it enlightening.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was a catastrophic mistake to allocate money to US firms, instead of Iraqi corporations and Iraqi government. Political leaders and opinion makers had facts to present and enough evidence for their intention, to show off the US as exploiting imperialists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. You dont have to create an impression when every Iraqi from a two year old upwards firmly believed prior to the war that this was going to be an American occupation where the Great Satan was going to rape their resources and steal their oil. The Arab street does not rely on facts and concrete evidence - it has wild conspiracy (Its the Jews!!) and anger (The Americans have shamed my country!) to drive them, along with the whole loss of stature (We Sunni's used to be top of the pile!) to drive them along. Notice in his little 90 minute rant earlier this month that Zarqui (sp argh) targetted the Shi'ites for cooperating with the Americans? Have you heard from al'Sadr, the militant shi'ite cleric for a while? He's piped down because its becoming increasingly clear that the insurgency is no longer targetting just Americans, it is also targetting Shi'ites, because the radical Sunni's that constitute the bulk of the terrorists realise those guys are going to win the election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like since the debate, or earlier debates started, you failed to understand my point, that I merely try to analyse the situation and make my assumptions based upon. I try to see the failures and the reasons. Who wins in the end does not really matter for me (except its nice to be right, like in the WMD debate…. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your analysis is wrong - it is fundamentally flawed because it is underlined with 100% hatred and suspicion of the US, and you will oppose them and anything they do, no matter what their aims are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. <span style='color:orange'> In fact, however, and as the auditors later showed, these measures were not implemented fully. </span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can try to stop smoking, but unless you actually DO, you still buy cigarettes.
When they want to avoid being accused fishy practices, they should achieve their goals of transparency.
You know its not that difficult to allocate money in an occupied nation. Its easy. You can do as you like. So when you say, that oil pump gets so much, and that one so much, and they get it.
Ok? Its not really hard to do because there are no bureaucrats and oppositions that delay actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already dealt with this. Their "transparency" complaints were rediculous. They got their transparency, they just didnt get it <b>now</b>. It is that style of reporting that makes me suspicious of their more outlandish claims, especially the US oil funding one. What looks on the surface to be incredibly damaging and suspicious turns out to be inane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, Powell somehow reminded me of the Iraqi information minister trying to convince himself that its true what he’s talking there…poor fella. No really, it was annoying. WMD here, WMD there. WMD...did I tell you about the WMD by the way?
I almost stopped watching the news as I could not hear it anymore....
I have an acquaintance who is in directly and relatively deeply involved in politics of one of the federal states of Germany. He is thus directly in contact with European politics and has thus the opportunity to chat with people that travel a lot and meet important other people.
One of them is in the EU foreign ministry. That one has to tell much good about Mr, Powell , as he shall be an honest and credible man. Thus, Powell’s claims of the actual existence of the WMD gave the story a touch of truth, which would not have been there without him.
I did not count much for this, as I believed Powell, as a seasoned Military officer was doing his duty whether its right or wrong.
I still do not know if he was convinced himself or not, that has to be decided by the Historians, however, I now understand that he is actually an honest man, since his retirement speaks much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So.. whats your point? Powell was an honest man, but GWB and the rest of his dirty neocons were lying through their teeth? Face it - the entire administration was convinced he had them, their intelligence agencies were convinced he had them, the British intelligence agencies were convinced he had them, the Australian intelligence were convinced he had them, the French intelligence were convinced he had them, the German intelligence were convinced he had them, the only service unconvinced was Russian intelligence. Everyone who should have been listened to thought he had them. The Bush administration did not lie. They were very, very, very wrong. But it wasnt lying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you should PM it to me, I would be interested.
All I can say is, that you are wrong when you put me into a sceme.
I rethink my position regularly based on information acquire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I left that comment there simply to let you know I had been unworthy - I consider it lame to say something vidictive, then simply remove it before the offended party has a chance to observe it, it reminds me of schoolgirls saying horrible things about each other behind each others backs. I said something unworthy, and I took it back before you could see it, but felt it wouldn't be fair that my unworthy remark should disappear unnoted by the victim. So I'd rather leave it with you knowing I'd been nasty - without my nastyness actually being aired again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, in closure I want to express my personal point of view on the matter at hand.
It looks to me like the US have bitten off more than they can chew. Not direcly in military matters, but in economical.
Their anticipations of Iraqs economy were bloody wrong and their reconstruction efford will never go as planned. It has already startet so horribly and misorganized, that it can hardly come worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They didnt expect it, they will handle it. Something I have noticed as well from my own experience, is that when a man is put in a corner, he manages. The Americans have always been a resourceful mob, and so long as the population doesnt pull the plug, I have every confidence in the US ability to set the Iraqi people on the road to democracy and keep them their. Basically, they have to balls to make it happen, and they are willing to suffer and pay for it the whole way - everything I could hope for from the USA.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I can, as I said before, tell from own experience, that this reconstruction will take years and cost mega. Even without fighting in the country.
Also, If not finally mesures are taken to actually distribute the contracts to Iraqi companies mainly, the Industry will not really recover. All you will achieve is that more oil is flowing, however, it will not flow into Iraqs pockets.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cost, yes. Long time, yes. Will it be done? Yes. The Iraqi industry you speak of doesnt exist yet. The industry that does exist is being engaged. The budget for the Iraqi government is comprised mainly upon the money generated from oil exports. The Iraqi's will see their oil again in the form of power grids, schools, hospitals, clean water - it will just take time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, it must be determined how the New Government will handle the prizes.
One possibility might be, that an US supported Iraq would leave OPEC and start selling off oil at competing prizes, which would certainly lead to much lower overall oil prizes, since OPEC monopoly would be damadged.
Another prospective is, that the insurgency will go on and on, forcing the US to maintain their presence, which means a continiung finacial disaster for the US.
The only one profiting would be the arms industry, but since taxiation is neglectible atm.....
This scenario could result in a situation similar to vietnam, where finally the public support for the US government and military brakes down and the president is eventually forced to find a way out.
Then, well, either Iraq sinks into chaos and civil war (most likely) or a strong leader will emerge and create a sovereing, totalitarian regime. Both variants will most likely involve a fundamentalist touch.
However, such a government has prospects and possibilities.
Foreing companies most likely will wait with open arms for contracts and opportunities. They do already. That is, only in case the US do not try to sanction such a regime.
In that case, it will be isolated and dry out like Afghanistan under Taliban reign.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have the wrong president. Bush will not back down. He was returned to office with an increased majority because the American people wanted him to finish the job. He will not abandon the country to become a bloody hellhole as so many want him to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>!EDIT!
The methods I talk about here are sleep deprivation and the additional methods mentioned in my last post about torture. I do not mean the ones in my description about physical torture. I just do not want any misunderstandings about that.
!EDIT!</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay then, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I’ve seen photos of several prisoners standing doggystyle on their fellow detainees. That’s more of your taste?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are referring to pictures from Abu Grahib, then we are talking apples and oranges. What went on their was pointless torture of petty Iraqi criminals. It has nothing to do with US Army interrogation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The methods I described in short are trained to specialised military personnel in all NATO member states. There is an international military school that organizes interrogation seminaries to members of SF units.
These methods are trained there. That has been thoroughly discussed recently in Germany because of several reports of recruits that had been touched a bit roughly during their training. Nothing special, but since we have a draft army, some of the recruits had a problem with it.
In that context, Germanys participation in interrogation method training was discussed.
During that training, all the things I summed up are applied to the participation soldiers.
All of them.
However, it is regulated to an extent where it is not harmful. It is controlled. Yet, even under simulated circumstances, the trainers had tendencies to exaggerate and even among really hard SF- soldiers many soldiers had felt the need to break off the courses, in isolated cased it even came to the point where the soldiers collapsed.
The truth is, that even under simulated circumstances, the interrogators are in great temptation do “overdo it”
You say those methods are not used to full extend? Says who? The official orders?
The Pentagon statement?
Again, I’m not against such training as it is necessary to prepare soldiers to what they can experience, and I understand the necessity to apply enough pressure on resilient enemies.
With this I want to explain, that the power of an interrogator is often a great temptation to “do it properly”. Even under lab conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the SF get trained to interrogate? And if their interrogation was bad, how would we even know? My article dealt specifically with the guidelines set down for US army interrogators, not German special forces. You are claiming the US is torturing people as part of routine interrogation. I'm claiming that the interrogation does not amount to torture, and any of it that does is an aberation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.prisonexp.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.prisonexp.org/</a>
This is a link to an experiment. It was scheduled to last for 14 days. It had to be aborted after 6 days because of severe sings of depressive psychosis’s and various other traumata among the prisoners. Also, it came to violent behaviour among the wardens against the prisoners.
That was an experiment. They played a game. They were normal people volunteered for this, and it turned very real, within 6 days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was done in the 70's - they were all taking a lot of whacked out stuff in the 70's. None of the guards had any training at all. The researcher was <b>actually a part of the experiment</b> - on this one fact alone no one will take your research seriously. That is a serious compromise of experimental objectivity - researcher bias is something modern day researchers strive desperately hard to avoid through blind and double blind experiments. This hack actually got involved - he even reports his emotional involvement and excitement. But it gets better - they actually pay the participants for participating. That is considered ethically wrong for modern researchers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It should be clear that we were trying to create a functional simulation of a prison -- not a literal prison. Real male prisoners don't wear dresses, but real male prisoners do feel humiliated and do feel emasculated. Our goal was to produce similar effects quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes. Indeed, as soon as some of our prisoners were put in these uniforms they began to walk and to sit differently, and to hold themselves differently -- more like a woman than like a man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aahahahahahahahah. It gets better. They implement situations not actually found in prisons based around their idea that being in a prison makes you feel emasculated. I am bookmarking this - my psychology lecture would be stunned. And then, on the second day, the prisoners implement a rebellion. The second day. They cant handle being shaved, showered, and called by numbers for a 24 hour period - oh no, they riot. Clearly they had some crazy, crazy kids in on this experiment. At this point, I stopped reading, because my sides hurt. That study hasnt the slightest bearing on reality what so ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are pictures of soldiers posing over a dead body? A freaking dead body? Why do you think he died? Heart attack?
You are one of them accusing others of playing down the insurgents crimes and highlight only US deeds, while yourself you try to convince us of their harmless methods. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not standard interrogation - sick abberations of normal policy. Abberations I believe are rare and prosecuted. Just ask Mr Grainer of Grahib fame, who is sitting in a cell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, lets put it this way. Like I mentioned earlier, we had “isolated cases” of young recruits got “tortured” by their drill instructors in order to prepare them for an eventual assignment.
That is imho important, however it was not officially intended to be trained to normal recruits.
The incidents were not tragic. Simulated kidnapping and being tied up in a ark room for several hours. Things like that.
It was declared, this happenings were “isolated cases”. However, looking back into reports from recruits that did claim to be treated improperly in that context over the past decade showed, that Isolated cases happened almost weakly throughout the republic…..It was never ever official policy however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you want me to assume that the worst, which goes against policy, is the norm? The worst only continues to happen when it is not confronted. As my article showed, the US interrogators got their hands tied after Abu Grahib as a reaction to the exposure. It is now a matter of official policy and urgency to ensure that sort of thing doesnt happen again. I believe it will, but I believe it will be rare, and swiftly dealt with.
EDIT2
Here is what I dont understand. I have found multiple articles on the current situation in Iraq referring to the handling of revenue generated from Iraqi oil exports. I cannot reconcile these claims with your articles claim that Iraq is consuming all its own oil, and is actually importing more. Can anyone clear that up for me?
Thanks for the Oil for Food Article. I'll read into it as soon I can.
I try to continue this, but I currently have many demands on my time.
I guess I can come back somewhat around Wednestay.
I'm really enyoing this!
just some quick things that sprung to my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That was done in the 70's - they were all taking a lot of whacked out stuff in the 70's. None of the guards had any training at all. The researcher was actually a part of the experiment - on this one fact alone no one will take your research seriously. That is a serious compromise of experimental objectivity - researcher bias is something modern day researchers strive desperately hard to avoid through blind and double blind experiments. This hack actually got involved - he even reports his emotional involvement and excitement. But it gets better - they actually pay the participants for participating. That is considered ethically wrong for modern researchers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The guards had no training. Yes. But even without training or instruction, they "invented" very effective methods which are used in real prisons and by trained personnel. They took over absolute typical behavior, which was the aim of that experiment. Thus, the experiment was consdered a success.
The researcher was not biased when it comes down to judging the experiments outcome.
they were emerged in the psychological dynamics that developed during the experiment.
That was part of the experiment and the researchers were, as the reports state, extremely surprised by their own reactions in that situation. That is why the experiment was ended preemtively. The researchers realised their own immersion and that they failed to distinguish between reality and simulation.
That does only emphasise the extreme psychological circumstances that occured during these 6 days. Just imagine.... 6 days and these young scientists started to think like prison supervisors. ...
Paying the participants for their participation is perfectly normal. If you engage in such experiments you get a compenstion for your time. Ive done this several times during my studies. Stuff like testing software for edjucational research (stuff like virtual classrooms and such...) Its good money for a few hours of work.
(i was young and needed the money <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Its even practical for medical research to pay volunteers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you want me to assume that the worst, which goes against policy, is the norm? The worst only continues to happen when it is not confronted. As my article showed, the US interrogators got their hands tied after Abu Grahib as a reaction to the exposure. It is now a matter of official policy and urgency to ensure that sort of thing doesnt happen again. I believe it will, but I believe it will be rare, and swiftly dealt with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asume that, when you close a door behind some people and tell them by raising your finger: "don't do anything I would't do myself!" that **** like this happens. Big time.
Some of the Soldiers working in Abu Grahib in the particular cellblock (A1 if I remember correctly) were not engaged in the torure and relieved of their post there because they demanded written orders for this. They did not get any, so they were reassinged to other parts of the prison.
The whole issue was brought up by the reports of some of those soldiers. They stirred up the water, information was leaking. The same way, it was brought to public in the particular case I explained we had here in Germany. It was brought to light from inside, and the government was unable to contain it. The same we see in the Abu Grahib incident.
Its always the same. It works that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why would the SF get trained to interrogate? And if their interrogation was bad, how would we even know? My article dealt specifically with the guidelines set down for US army interrogators, not German special forces. You are claiming the US is torturing people as part of routine interrogation. I'm claiming that the interrogation does not amount to torture, and any of it that does is an aberation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SF troopers are trained to resist these methods. They undergo the procedure as part of their training, to be prepared if they get captured behind enemy lines. However, they also are trained to bring these methods to bear themselves. The SF trainign was just an example. The methods are however very widespread.
In the course of our own little "torture scandal" a seasoned german soldier, which is a instructor on that particular field of study, was questioned about the incidents. the discussion was about how hard a regular drafted recruit can be touched by their instructors, and whether or how these recruits should be prepared for a possible captivity and interrogation scenario. The questios about NATO- torture courses and the methods trained therein came up.
He testified that these methods do resemble methods used in Abu Grahib. He said that things like he saw on the photos are exactly the same methods he does teach to his students. He has endured such treatment himself as he has participated as "victim" several times during his active military carrear.
He did repeat the statements later on as the press aproached him.
(His reasons for disclosing these information was, that the treatment on these courses does tend to get out of hand and people frequently get hurt, as the instructors tend to overdo it. His intention was to enforce more control in the process. Just for clarification)
I take a look if I still have the article, then I might give you a translation, as it written in german.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is what I dont understand. I have found multiple articles on the current situation in Iraq referring to the handling of revenue generated from Iraqi oil exports. I cannot reconcile these claims with your articles claim that Iraq is consuming all its own oil, and is actually importing more. Can anyone clear that up for me?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can. I've just re-read the paragraph and found the bug. The numbers about consumtion refer to <i>petroleum</i> consumption and production. I failed to translate that part correctly and mixed it up during the process of quoting them together.
The current capability of oil production is stated far down in the article in the part of the future prospects.
The actual capacity is 2.5 million barrel. that are the numbers from which the oil revenues come which are also summed up in the article.
My fault sorry. I was busy and you can see on the various edits of that post that I had a multitude of things to correct. Never do this under pressure.
Now before you jump up, Saudi Arabia in comparison, is currently producing around 8,5 million/barrel per day, which does not resemble their peak capacity. (thats to maintain stable prices)
yet, they suffer from national debt and stagnating economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But how is this relevant to the current management to the Iraqi oil? The system has been degrading for nearly 30 years now. All that I care about is how they are going returning it to prewar levels, at which point I will consider it an unmigitated success. They havent done so yet.
[...]
Again, its nothing I wouldnt expect - an evil man in a corner is an ugly thing. But we are still discussing the Iraqi oil situation in terms that have no relevance to the two things that concern me: oil situation prewar, oil situation postwar.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we are chasing us around a table here. Lets just sum it up, the economy is rotting since 13 years. That means it is desolated.
As I said, We have such a desolated economy to feed on our own and that is going on since 15 years, without really changing anything exept
some economic hotspots.
The big advantage in Iraq is, that they have a valuable ressource. That is the prospective. However, they are not capable of rebuilding production facilities and increase their capacitiy, not to speak of developing new industries, because it is too dangerous for the investors.
No company will risk his money OR the life of its employees in Iraq anytime soon.
No peace, not investors, no investors, no growth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Low taxation for rich supporters is corruption? You do realise that lowering taxes for the wealthy is a tried and tested method for reinvigorating the economy and driving economic growth?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true for economical entities. Like coorporations. You must differ between taxiation for economy and for private persons. When you lower taxiation for a certain group of people, those persons wager their personal influence in your favour.
For example, a communist party would favor workers in terms of taxiation, to gain their support.
I hope that clarifies my point, it was just an example, maybe not a good one. Sorry if it was confusing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What? They didnt have to choose between the Saudi's or Saddam. They already had oil contracts with Kuwait, the Saudi's weren't attacking anyone. It wasnt 50 50 who do we attack, it was defending American oil interests and regional stability by throwing Saddam out. Over a quarter of a million Middle Eastern troops joined in on the venture. Your choice did not exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, that was maybe a bit misleading. I'll clarify my statment. The Saudis became worried about Saddams expansionistic behavior after the attack on Kuwait. They feared a scenario where he would turn on Saudi arabia, since the saudis were aware that their military force was not on par with Saddams capabilities. So they informed the US about their concearns. The US and the Saudi monarchy are finacially connected since decades and good buissness partners. Losing Saudi Arabias friendship or was not an option back then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The kings butt didnt get stung - he had heaps of ways around the oil for food program. But now he had an excuse to carry on with some economic warfare against those in his country that didnt quite agree. The OFF program was specifically designed to prevent the peasants feeling the pain, and it failed miserably at that because of corruption within the UN.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats why the saying goes "the peasants feel the pain"
I have scimmed your sources, and there is nothing I had not exected. Honestly, that is why I did never had the feeling to go into that program any further.I cannot imagine why you are pounding on it every time. Thats how things work. Financial aid alsways goes throug many hands first and on the way 60%+ simply gets "lost". Perfectly normal. where do you think all that money for the Tzunami region went?
Of course Saddam fed on the program, I really do not know why you are so agitated about that? Mr. Bush blew 40 million dollar on one day for his reelection Party. Why does this not agitate your sense of justice?
You are focusing on that particular injustice as it appeals to your detest for the UN. With this, you exhibit the behavior you do so valaintly critizise on your fellow forum posters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
No one tried to bleed Saddam out, they just didnt want him to buy anything that could be used for another military strike. The US and the international community didnt want the Iraqi's to suffer for their leader, so tried to find away around. They made the mistake of using the United Nations, and the inevitable corruption ruined it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> what do you think the idea of a blokade is? you know, the that concept is not so new? It's done since some thousand years.
Take cuba as one of the recent examples. the Idea was to bleed out the country until the people would revolt against Fidel. Well that old fool proved resilient. Like Saddam. The ones that suffer are the people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This stands in direct contrast to your claims made above. You claimed that Saddam allocated resources to his civilians, and then blamed the Americans for poverty. I am quite confident that not only are you wrong, but that you didnt know it was true either, it just sounded like a plausible explanation and you threw it up in Saddam's defence anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read context of the article That states
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
it was envisioned by the regime as a means to reestablish contacts with the outside world as well as to provide basic commodities and medicine. However, it failed to prevent the deterioration in the people's standard of living and the disintegration of the country's institutions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam was able to blame the sanctions for the poverty. He gave his people the most nesseary things to survive, and blamed the Embargo for their poverty. Thus he fed anti-american sentiments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And here, I demonstrate that not only is my knowledge about the region sound, but that you are capable of proving my point in your rebuttal. I argued that increased use of fuel by the domestic sector pointed to an increase in economic activity. You argued, entertainingly too might I add, that the Iraqi's merely went out and bought a whole stack of cars after Saddam fell, and because they're old cars, they guzzle fuel. But then you destroy your arguement by using the Egypt example, pointing out that fuel use there is high because they all drive cars as taxis. A taxi is a domestic, revenue generating service, it a part of the economy. These Iraqi's arent buying cheap cars and then driving around the desert like yahoo's, they, like the Egyptians, buy them and use them for financial reasons. Iraqi's are not crazy, nor are they rich. They might have cheap oil and cheap cars, but they dont spend all day racing each other and visiting their neighbours 600km away. Beggars and jobless men dont drive cars around willy nilly. I stand on what I consider a very solid point - the increased demand on fuel in the domestic sector points to economic growth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Egypt example was to emphasise the normality a car represents in the middle east and how cheap they are to aquire and maintain.
So in regard of your argumentation, yes, basically they are economical factors. They would fit into the range of buissness investments if you want. That taxi example however fits the purpose better than you might think on second thought. These taxi "enterprises" are maintained because of the poverty which is visible everywhere in Egypt. They are offering their services for a few bucks. That is hardly considerable as "buisness". It's another form of beggary, like carying your luggage from the airport terminal to your shuttle bus. I don't even know if its officially legal. This emphasises the cheapness of petroleum products. That is where I wanted to go. I merely tried to explain that a few cars and more fuel thats burnt does not relemble soemthing worth calling economical groth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You provided a link, and a whole stack of quotes to support your viewpoint, but amazingly left out everything that didnt quite fit with your "Americans are teh evil" viewpoint. If I give you an article, I bite the bullet and take care to point out where it disagrees with me, just so people dont think I'm trying to play both ends against the middle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Sir. I posted the parts containing the information I wanted to express, since I did not intent to write much about it myself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However, quoting the paragraph preceeding the paragraph above isnt going to save you here. There is no relation between the two. That has no bearing on what that article plainly stated - the "its a war for oil" is myth. Your best hope is to claim thats merely their opinion, but never the less it is there, in black and white, in an article you are using to support your argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lets look at it again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<span style='color:orange'>These reports, whether officially sponsored or not, reinforced the belief in the public's mind – in the US, Iraq and worldwide – that the war was about oil. This impression was reinforced by some of the public assumptions made about Iraqi oil prior to the war, even though most of the projections by senior US officials proved to be wrong. Among the ideas floated was the proposition that Iraqi oil revenue would be more than enough to pay for the reconstruction of the country immediately after the war, ignoring both the devastated state of the economy after 25 years of wars and sanctions and the approximately $200bn owed in debt and compensation. It was also argued that shortly after the US won the war, Iraqi oil would flood world markets, bringing world oil prices down. Or that Iraqi oil reserves would replace Saudi spare capacity and end the dependence of the US on Saudi oil. Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms.</span> In fact, with the exception of awards to firms such as Halliburton and a few others, most of the funds allocated for Iraqi development and reconstruction were not disbursed because of the lack of security in the country.
<span style='color:orange'>Despite these myths</span>, which received wide publicity and acceptance because of the quick military victory, the US authorities did not alter overall oil policy. The CPA focused on the rehabilitation of the industry to bring it back to the pre-war production level of 2.8mn b/d on the first anniversary of the war in April 2004. This program has been delayed and its goal will not be met by the end of the year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The highlited part above are the myths the author refers to. He is talking about the public opinion which went on to decay into specualtions futher and further. Nevertheless, the Author describes the sources of the "myths".
Here, you see one of your "myths".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Finally, there was the campaign which actually got under way as early as June 2003 and lasted until April 2004 that promised lucrative contracts to US firms.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And here you make the leap the writers of the article implied by couldnt articulate. The original plan was abandoned, and a set of regulations was set up to ensure that the American and British officials maintained transparency. These transparency regulations were not fully met. So these conditions were met up to a point, but not to the point these guys would like - I would really, really like to know exactly what about these regulations that they thought werent followed completely up to par. But unfortunately they do not elaborate, which makes me relatively confident that there are no shocking and widespread breachs of protocol here, no rampant rorting and backdoor deals, just regulations they thought werent followed stringently enough.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there was a plan, to set up a team, includiong Iraqis. That would have made sense. Why did the not do so? Whether it was intentional or just plain stupidity, it had an impact on the people. Those news are spreding fast adn the US are watched closely and sceptically. Such misleading descidions are counterproductive. In the very least, it was absolutely incomtetent management.
As for the transparency:
You are obviously not unintelligent. I am sure you have encoutered similar situations in economical scandals all over the world several hunderd times in your lifetime. Why should it be different in this very particular case?
Whatever happened, the point here is, that it further destroyed US cedibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I didnt say that there were no security problems, I said that the idea that security is non existant is garbage. Clearly the US has had, and continues to have, problems with terrorists and criminals, but you make it sound as if they are overwhelmed and completely unable to function, which just isnt the case. Security isnt a disaster in Iraq, but its a big problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is bad enough to keep investors away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The looting was rampant insurgency or no. To claim that they wasted it seems to be arguing from a position of ignorance. The oil industry was a priority, and your own article claims the CPA focused on it throughout 2003. They failed to achieve their goal, as you bolded in your quote - but the article doesnt detail why they failed or who is to blame. Definately not good though, you are correct there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why they fail is easy, they did not invest the money at their disposal For whatever reson there is. I really don't know. It makes no sesnse. I'm inclined to blame it on bad management.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Again I state - you cannot give oil industry rebuilding contracts to non existant companies with non existant professionals and non existant equipment. The oil professionals in Iraq jumped ship a long time ago, machinery was run down and spare parts extremely limited. The fact is that if they could have handed the contracts to Iraqi's, they would have. They didnt because there wasnt a plethora of Iraqi companies lining up. You know how many lesbian strippers we have working at my surgery? Not many. Is that because a) there are millions of lesbian strippers lining up daily for a job but my employer is bigotted and refuses to hire them or b) because there aint that many lesbian strippers looking for a job in the vet industry? Your article cleverly implied that the Americans were withholding contracts from begging Iraqi's, and you fell for it headfirst.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, nice allegory. How did you get on the lesbos?
Now. really. Yes, many experts "jumped ship". The article states:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They exiled either because they were not satisfied with their standard or living or because they were not able to fulfill Saddams expectations. Can't really blame them, can you? Why did people go to the new world? Or to Australia?
Just because it fits your point of view, exilants and refugees fleeing from your brutal regime (which you never fail to emphasis), suddenly become greedy deserters. Again, this is a behafior you frequently blame others for on these boards.
Could it be possible that these exialants would return to Iraq when they would been offered their old positions?
As for the nonexistent companies. They are desolate. Agreed. But they are there. They have personnel, they have experience, they speak the darn language.
When you intent to rebuild a nations industry, or develop one in the first place, you must do so by helping them in doing it themselves.
It must be done by their own economy's efford, by their own people. You cannot argue this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
AHA. Lookie what we have here. Its the IRW - everybody wave to Mr George Soros, the man who said that Bush reminded him of the Nazi's, and that defeating him in the past election was the most important issuing facing the world. Surely this 100% Soros funded thinktank focusing on Iraqi Revenue will avoid bias while studying the guilty, money grubbing CPA barstards. But alas, US depravity knows no bounds, and IRW is sorry to report that transparency is non existant, all the money is being given to the US while the Iraqi's starve, and the sky is indeed falling.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There something about questioning sources in the forum rules. They are not my sources by the way, they are sources of the MEES, which is well established and renown for its accuracy. When the stockmarkets can trust em its certainly good enough for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But good Lord I'm glad you brought this to my attention, the hilarity starts now. here is the beginning. I wondered were your article was sourcing its information on the transgressions and errors of the CPA, and now I know.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The CPA consistently failed to be transparent by not releasing the names of companies awarded contracts paid for with Iraqi funds. Although information was available about the recipients of U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts, until recently, there was no publicly available information about which companies were being paid with Iraqi oil revenues. This information was finally made available in an appendix released by the CPA-IG in August 2004, which provides information about the use of Iraqi funds to pay contracts valued at more than $5 million.8 That chart is reproduced in Appendix 1 of this report.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Here we discover those massive transparency breaches CEES had uncovered - the Americans withheld for, gasp, several months before releasing the names of the companies being paid with Iraqi money. Is it transparency? Not really - but neither is it a cloak and dagger affair like they attempted to paint it. The rest of the report is a sledging of everything the US and Iraqi authorities attempt
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are getting desperate. The same word "transparency" flashing up twice does not nessesarily imply that its automatically a hypertext link ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
One proposal was to establish an international board of advisers, composed of Iraqis and foreigners, to oversee and even run the industry. This idea was mooted in the summer of 2003 but did not take off. Instead, the CPA appointed American and British advisers to coordinate with the oil ministry. Consequently, regulations were introduced to maintain transparency regarding oil exports and revenue, as decreed by Security Council resolutions. In fact, however, <span style='color:orange'>and as the auditors later showed </span>, these measures were not implemented fully.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They checked their books. Thats what it refers to. Not telling who gets the contracts is another story, one that is strange enough on its own.
Obviously, that particular lack of transparency was not caused by the difficult circumstances, as the recipients of US fundings have been disclosed without any problems. So why don't tell the public where Iraqs money flows into? Why? Just state me ONE good reason for it. Just one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What? Are they serious? Do they have the slightest clue how contracts are allocated? You dont take 18.4 billion dollars, hurl it into the air and watch companies scurrying around fixing things. Spending 1.5 billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction money was always going to be a little bit simpler than spending almost 13 times that amount, and as of September 8th 2004 over 1 billion dollars of that 18.4 billion had already been spent, and 100 million more of that money was being spent every week. First they spent the Iraqi money, then they started spending their own. Whats wrong with that? Both are going to be used up eventually - these people are nothing but whiners, seeking every nitty gritty thing they can to complain about. There were reallocations of that money towards increased security to be honest, but over 1/3 still remained earmarked for water facilities and electricity, and was and is being spent at a rate comensurate with the demand from companies willing to brave the security concerns and reconstruct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
from the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However, most of the $18.4bn of US aid earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction has not been spent yet,<span style='color:quot'> despite the fact that the Project Management Office was specifically established to take over the CPA's work in supervising the allocation of US aid.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The CPA was not even supposed to do it anymore. There was another authority established to do it, but somehow that did not work out quite well. And believe me, there is enough possibility to spend money on down there. Saving it up is definately not helping anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Your analysis is wrong - it is fundamentally flawed because it is underlined with 100% hatred and suspicion of the US, and you will oppose them and anything they do, no matter what their aims are.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a saying about attacking the person, not the arguments ...
Besides, you are wrong. I was never opposed to Afghanistan for example. Your accusations and display your own narrow minded view of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You have the wrong president. Bush will not back down. He was returned to office with an increased majority because the American people wanted him to finish the job. He will not abandon the country to become a bloody hellhole as so many want him to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you take a closer look, they are already doing so. They rush the reinstallement of the Iraqi military presence. It is going really fast.They are doing so to pull their bulk out of the conflict. So far, no problem.
If you see recent reports from Iraq, you see more and more Iraqi troops on guard instead of US. In that perspective, your claim that they fight iraqi people is true.
Problem is, that the shiites are the dominant power now. it was forseeable that they would become the stronges parliamental force in the country. They stoped their hostilities toward the US to gain their support. In these days, more and more administrative positions and suposedly the bulk of the security forces are shiites.
To make a long story short, the US and British are preparing to bail out. and as soon as that happens, the whole country will start to go rampart.
The sunnites will start to bomb the shiites, the shiites will start to shoot the sunnies. They will proclaim their their governmental status as justification for that.
And voila, you have created another long term hotspot about which our children can argue via Internet. Basically, you will generate the exact opposite situation from before the war, simply exchange the opressor with the opressed. Well, maybe they deserve it.
Thats just a scenario of course.
No I don't think you could ever win a war on terror because even if the situatiion in Iraq is solved you've only got to wait until someone else gets annoyed about something and goes radical. My point is "in every human mind lies the potential for something terrible" so no matter how many terrorists you capture/kill([enter religious idol] forbid) ther is always the chance of someone else becoming one.
Again sorry if this isn't what you meant but to be honest some of these posts are like novels.(sorry)
No I don't think you could ever win a war on terror because even if the situatiion in Iraq is solved you've only got to wait until someone else gets annoyed about something and goes radical. My point is "in every human mind lies the potential for something terrible" so no matter how many terrorists you capture/kill([enter religious idol] forbid) ther is always the chance of someone else becoming one.
Again sorry if this isn't what you meant but to be honest some of these posts are like novels.(sorry)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, you got it.
I recommend some research on the 30 years war, which is the perfect example for the concept of satelite conflicts and a perfect example for religious motivated political agendas.
While it officially started in 1618 and lasted until 1648 (with brief intermissions of peace), the foundations for the war were laid long time ago during the period of the protestant movement and the schism (correct term?) within the church.
Religious zeal mixed with political interests. Competeting european powers fueld the war between the different christian movements manifesting in central europe, while the nations where the war raged sank into chaos and decay.
Here you find some english sources. I haven't checked them myself, thats just the first one I found on google. Go into it if your intrrerested.
<a href='http://www.niester.de/g_neuzeit/krieg_30_jahre/krieg_30_jahre.html' target='_blank'>http://www.niester.de/g_neuzeit/krieg_30_j...g_30_jahre.html</a>
My personal thoughts about the new emphasis on terroristic warfare is, that the equilibrium of power established during the cold war does not exist anymore.
In satelite conflicts durig that age (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc, ) both sides were heaviliy supported by one of the superpowers, which allowed the inferior force to hold their ground in more conventional guerrilia warfare.
While this support does not exist nowadays, they blow up cars instead shooting down helicopters.
As for the Iraq, well, the countrys future depends heavily on how the sunnites react to the shiites offers of letting them participate in the new government. There is much potential for conflict here, but the shiites at least seam to act reasonable. Now let us hope, that the sunnite leaders are reasonable too, otherwhise we have another long term civil war.
I believe the war on terror cannot be won, because as humans we will always progress into a stage of regression no matter what. Although we might gain one thing in this age of marvel, of that we have gained we will also lose in another way.
Eventually, most cultures will be assimiliated; it is unavoidable and the only way to increase order withal or without bloodshed, because the world needs unity.
However, I do believe that organized terrorism can be stopped, and that the war on terror is an attempt at this.
I'm not trying to be a **** just I dont know how you can stop organised terrorism by invading countries that support it
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
EX: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000.
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
Example: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000.