There's No Oil in Mass Graves

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians, Facts. Look at Falluhja...think those bombs are all carefully targeted? They blew up hospital a little earlier...can that be considered on the same level as market?

So many of the munitions the Americans use are depleted uranium that Iraqis will be dying for decades, maybe centuries. How does that fit into your equations?

If the Americans can't run an honest election at home, then what are the chances of them running an honest election in a country where they want to install a puppet government?

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: There

The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians, Facts. Look at Falluhja...think those bombs are all carefully targeted? They blew up hospital a little earlier...can that be considered on the same level as market?

I think Allawi's response to Annan sums that up better than I can: He said if Mr Annan thought he could prevent insurgents in Falluja from "inflicting damage and killing", he was welcome to try.

The Americans were ready to take Falluja in April but held off due to warnings about the potential of mass casualties. Here we are more than half a year later, and there's been no solution, the situation has only gotten worse. I don't think it's reasonable to expect average Iraqi's to accept that entire cities will be isolated as fortresses for terrorists. Did you read the accounts of people in Najaf and what the "insurgents" did to the people of that city while they were in control?

As for the hospital, no, I don't think that's on the same level as a market. The terrorists who target markets are targetting civillians shopping for groceries. What was in the hospital? Sick people? I don't think so, the leftie press doesn't miss an opportunity to highlight casualties at the hands of the Americans. All they said about the hospital is that "all the contents were destroyed". Granted there's nothing conclusive about that, but excuse me if it gives me a powerful feeling that by "contents" they mean RPG's and Kalishnikov's.

Perhaps if the "insurgents" were less willing to use Mosques and Hospitals as bases, and residents as human shields, fewer innocents would be killed, no?

So many of the munitions the Americans use are depleted uranium that Iraqis will be dying for decades, maybe centuries. How does that fit into your equations?

I don't know anything about the half-life and health hazards of depleted uranium, but here's what the World Health Organization has to say about it:

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

In other words, more study is required, but concluding that Iraqi's will be dying for decades, maybe centuries, uh-uh. Unfounded.

If the Americans can't run an honest election at home, then what are the chances of them running an honest election in a country where they want to install a puppet government?

We're back to sitting back on our asses and saying "let the Americans do it". There's all kinds of chances: get the UN to supervise (which I think may be the case anyway), send Jimmy Carter over there, international observers, whatever, use your imagination.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

I have a CD and a half full of information on DU...it's going to be killing people for decades. Including American GIs. It is also becoming more and more clear that it causes birth defects too. Using it is a crime against humanity.

Allawi is a puppet for the Bush government. That's no secret.

As long as the United States...their armed forces, their corporations, and their fifth columnists are in Iraq you will not see an end to the fighting. The funniest thing is that if they would have done things properly it wouldn't be like this. They refused to though because all they care about is the oil.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: There

What would happen if the US left Iraq Reverend?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

If they wait too long, then run away? You've seen clips of the end of the Vietnam war, haven't you? That's looking like the most likely scenario right now...helicopters flying off the roof of the US embassy after a ten year war of attrition.

If they turn things over to a real government, not a puppet regime, get their corporations out of there, admit they were wrong to invade, pay reparations, and then start handing things slowly over to the UN?

It will be far from perfect, but you will see the Iraqi people begin to stand up for themselves. It will undermine the ability of insurgents to recruit. People will slowly become less radicalised.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: There

But how can they assure the world that a new Iraqi government is a real one, and not a "puppet regime"? What effect will it have for the developing Iraqi economy if US-based corporations would leave the country? Is the UN capable of handling the mess [made by the US, that rhymes]? Is a new Iraqi government capable of being a strong central regime, and will the country not be torn apart by local leaders or ethnic groups who wish to have self-control? I'd never agreed with the US invasion, still don't, but we have now arrived at a point that the situation is too complex to just say that the US has to retreat.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

That's why I'm for the slow turn-over...so they don't just retreat. Nothing will move forward as long as they are there though. The government won't be accepted by the people and various factions will put forth resistance after resistance as a result.

Nothing is certain, but the UN running things and allowing whoever wants to to run in elections and making sure those elections are fair and transparent is a major step. The United States has given very little indication that they are willing to let an anti-US regime take power in Iraq.

There are plenty of corporations around the world that can work in Iraq, Rick. Several of them had contracts with the Iraqi government to move in and begin working (mostly in the oil fields) when the sanctions were lifted. The US invasion voided all of those contracts.

The Iraqi people are also quite capable of providing their own building and infrastructure expertise. Remember that they kept the power on etc. even under crushing sanctions and a brutal dictator. Think they are not capable of doing that again?

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

That's why I'm for the slow turn-over...so they don't just retreat. Nothing will move forward as long as they are there though. The government won't be accepted by the people and various factions will put forth resistance after resistance as a result.

But isn't this a paradox? I mean, I do agree with you in essence, I guess this is also the reason why the situation is so complex at the moment: on the one hand, the insurgents want the US to leave, or else, more bloodshed will follow; on the other hand, if the US leaves in the short term, we don't know what will happen.

You say there are a lot of corporations who can work in Iraq. But how many are also willing to work? The last few months, it has not only been the US army, US citizens and foreign nationals working for the US army / US-based companies who were the targets of attacks and kidnappings, but also people working for foreign companies from other countries than the US. I can recall that Russia has given the advice to Russian-based companies after the war "ended" to leave Iraq. Iraq oil is attractive, but how many corporations are willing to take a certain risk?

On the long term, the Iraqi people might as well prove to be capable to rebuild their country again, but they can't do it alone right?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

The people being kidnapped are a result of the US occupation though. They all, in one way or another, work for Halliburton, unless they are aid workers.

The biggest problem right now is that no matter who comes in, there will be the perception that they are working with the Americans, but that perception is not going to go away as long as the Americans are there.

Iraq gets less safe every day, and that isn't because of Fallujah or a few terrorists coming across the borders. It is because the US invaded, did not bother to secure anything but the oilfields and has treated the Iraqi people badly. The Iraqis are reacting to that by fighting back and/or protecting those that are fighting back.

In the end it comes down to a simple equation: Too many dead kids from US bombs=a lot of people willing to kill US soldiers (or their perceived collaborators) any way they can.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: There

But what should the US army do? Leave Iraq? Yes, according to you. But slowly. How do you explain that to Iraqi insurgents?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And excuse me but bush is a f***ing bastard.

Not that I'm disagreeing here Peapod, but actually I think Bush is himself a puppet and doesn't really know what's going on. That's the most charitable explanation I can put on his behaviour.

The real powers in the Excited States of America in the last four years were Rumsfeldt, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. In particular, Google on Paul Wolfowitz and read some of the stuff he's written. He's a frightening guy, a serious war hawk who thinks the USA is perfectly entitled to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants, just because it can. Iraq has been a target of the Bush administration from the beginning, and I suspect that the thinking among those three after 11 Sept 2001 was something like "find some way to blame this on Iraq." I'm sure you've all seen some of the same poll results I have, about the number of Americans who believe Sodamn Insane had something to do with that attack, and that he was somehow in league with Osama bin Laden. To any informed person, that lacks all credibility. Sodamn's Baathist party was a socialist, secular organization, anathema to a fundamentalist crackpot like Osama. The Iraqi government was one of the ones Osama wanted to topple and replace with a fundamentalist Islamic one; the invasion of Iraq and the completely predictable unrest there now just plays into his hands.

I'm sure most of us agree that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do, it was done for the wrong (and mostly made up) reasons, and there was not proper planning about what to do after the regime had been knocked down. However, as somebody's pointed out here previously, what's done is done and that's the reality we have to deal with. If American and British forces pulled out now, I'm fairly sure the result would be a bloody and protracted civil war in Iraq with at least three sides: Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. And probably a fourth side too, foreign Islamic radicals who want a fundamentalist Islamic state there. Then Turkey and Iran might be drawn in... ugh, doesn't bear thinking about on a pleasant Sunday afternoon.

But it's not, and has never been, just about oil. It's about making the world safe for certain powerful private American interests, like Halliburton and Bechtel, and the only difference between a Republican and a Democratic administration in the U.S. that I can see is who they want to write them the cheques that'll tell them what their priorities ought to be, and what parts of the federal government they want to get bigger.

Not so different from here, actually, except for the theocratic nature of the present U.S. administration...

Dex

 

[Reverend Blair]

But what should the US army do? Leave Iraq? Yes, according to you. But slowly. How do you explain that to Iraqi insurgents?

You don't explain it to the insurgents, you explain it to the Iraqi people, offer insurgents an amnesty if they stop their attacks, then put in peace-keepers. Those peace keepers have to have a large contingent from Muslim nations and they have to be able to return fire as part of their mandate.

The thing is that the number of insurgents will drop off when the US starts leaving as long as the UN is seen to be honest in their intentions. The Iraqi people will stop backing the insurgents if they see that things are improving.

It won't be as quick or as clean as that sounds, and I don't mean to make it sound like a cakewalk, but it is a chance for things to improve. That chance doesn't exist as long as the US is still there.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It won't be as quick or as clean as that sounds, and I don't mean to make it sound like a cakewalk, but it is a chance for things to improve. That chance doesn't exist as long as the US is still there.

Yeah, I think you have the truth of it there Reverend. It's never going to get better as long as the invaders are there; the best chance is a major UN-backed international intervention, and its credibility requires the presence of troops from Iraq's Muslim neighbours with decent rules of engagement that allow them to shoot back when necessary.

But what I'm afraid is going to happen is that U.S.-sponsored elections will be held, nobody will believe the result is anything but a U.S. puppet, the U.S. will pull out (except for a large contingent of some crack force like the 82nd Airborne protecting the oil fields), leave the Iraqis nominally in charge of their own affairs before they're ready and able to do that, and the country will sink into civil war.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

I think you've got what is likely to happen right. I think that'll take about ten years though...Iraq has the second-largest oil reserve on earth. John Kerry wasn't about to walk away from it, and the mumbling from the Democrats after losing the election indicates they are about to take a giant step to the right in a bid to regain power in 2008.

The only hope for Iraq now is that the world community steps up the pressure on Bush, including Tony Blair getting the hell out of Iraq.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

You don't explain it to the insurgents, you explain it to the Iraqi people, offer insurgents an amnesty if they stop their attacks, then put in peace-keepers. Those peace keepers have to have a large contingent from Muslim nations and they have to be able to return fire as part of their mandate.

But do you think the insurgents will accept the amnesty they are granted? What if they don't? What if they do not only want no Americans, but no foreigners at all interfering in Iraq? And what if Muslim nations don't want to participate in a peace force? And what if the insurgents see them as an extension of former US presence?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

I think the insurgents would be under great pressure from their felow Iraqis to accept an amnesty. Most people want peace, they just don't want to be occupied.

Muslim nations would take part in the peace force if only to cover their own asses. If the US is in charge of the second-largest reserve of oil on earth it will severely limit the the power of a newly-revived OPEC.

There are a lot of ifs, Rick. The fact is that what is happening now isn't working. Remember when the US first invaded? The majority of the Iraqi population wasn't blatantly against them. Now they are. The press used to be able to go out and report things. Now they file stories from their hotel rooms.

If something isn't working...is making the situation demonstrably worse...then you try something else.

 

[grimy]

I have some difficulty with portions of what you say:

Most people want peace, they just don't want to be occupied.

Correct when you state most people want peace, however they don't want to be occupied or ruled by dictators either.

If the US is in charge of the second-largest reserve of oil on earth it will severely limit the the power of a newly-revived OPEC.

So what, do you really see that as a bad thing?

The majority of the Iraqi population wasn't blatantly against them. Now they are.

I'm curious as to where you obtained a stat such as that. Would you mind posting it?

The press used to be able to go out and report things. Now they file stories from their hotel rooms.

Yet again a link supporting this which will no doubt dissavow the fact it's so much easier for them to stay in thier rooms and drink and be merry where it is so much safer for them. Yes I know its a muslim nation.

If something isn't working...is making the situation demonstrably worse...then you try something else.

You and many others are so quick to condemn the US, before they've had a chance to get the situation settled.

It seems to me that most of what you write is pure subjective opinion as wishful thinking. Supporting links from reputable and objective sources would be appreciated.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Correct when you state most people want peace, however they don't want to be occupied or ruled by dictators either.

And would another US puppet be any less a dictator than Saddam, the last US dictator.

So what, do you really see that as a bad thing?

Yes. It allows them to control their own resources and offer at least some resistance to imperialist pressures. That's why Hugo Chavez worked so hard to revive it.

You miss my point though...it isn't what I want, it's what they want acting as an incentive to get them involved.

I'm curious as to where you obtained a stat such as that. Would you mind posting it?

CBC Newsworld, various papers and magazines, radio reports. There are other media than the internet.

Yet again a link supporting this which will no doubt dissavow the fact it's so much easier for them to stay in thier rooms and drink and be merry where it is so much safer for them. Yes I know its a muslim nation.

Again it's been noted in several forms of media by a variety of sources.

You and many others are so quick to condemn the US, before they've had a chance to get the situation settled.

They created the situation against the will of most of the world. They did so without the slightest plan on how to address a variety of problems they were warned were going to occur, instead telling us that the Iraqi people would be dancing in the streets at the sight of an invading army.

It seems to me that most of what you write is pure subjective opinion as wishful thinking. Supporting links from reputable and objective sources would be appreciated.

It seems to me that you offer nothing constructive and are happy with a status quo that has left over 100,000 Iraqis...most of them civilians...dead. The United States has been caught breaking international law after law , yet you choose to ignore that.

Tell me Grimy, what would you do?

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: There

Saddam was not a US dictator ... it was more like a Western dictator ... but that's hard to admit for a lot of governments. Point is that a lot of governments had diplomatic, and even stronger, bonds with Hussain. Actually, there are more dictators currently who are at the least, not punished by our governments ... regimes who violate human rights ... China ... Russia ... Venezuela ... Saudi Arabia ...

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: There

It was a series of US-backed coups that brought Saddam to power and it was American backing that made him so powerful. Other nations dealt with him, but he was an American puppet until he became politically inconvenient by threatening the flow of oil, then he became a liability.

As for dictatorships...you can take Venezuela off that list. Hugo Chavez has been elected twice. When he was overthrown in a CIA backed coup the people rose up and had him re-instated.