Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

> > > > If we wanted Iraqi oil, it would have been enormously cheaper and
> > > > quicker to abet the corrupt UN oil-for-food program or just drop the
> > > > sanctions entirely.
> > >
> > > It was quite well known that the iraqi people suffered from it and I
> > > can't
> > > really remember that the US had any interest in doing something about
> > > this.
> >
> >   We did, there were several discussions about it, and led in part to
> > our frustration with the UN. Whether or not Osama had links to Saddam,
> > he was definitely using the sanctions as a recruiting drive. One of  
> > the
> > driving forces behind the oil-for-food program was Madeline Albright,  
> > in
> > part to help relieve the humanitarian problems brought on by the
> > sanctions.
>
> So why had the US no interest in lifting these sanctions?

 We had interest in lifting the sanctions, and if Saddam had made a
reasonable effort to stop trying to abuse them while they were in place,
it might have happened. Ignoring the corruption entirely, everyone  
agrees
that Saddam was _trying_ to get WMD materials, they just disagree on
whether he was successful.

 So we didn't like the sanctions either, but we also didn't like the  
idea
of letting Saddam off the leash. We weren't alone in that, his neighbors
were telling us the same thing.

> That the
> oil-for-food program was abused is one point, but the suffering of the
> iraqui people is another. Your only reflex to the sanctions is that  
> there
> was a abuse of the only thing that actually helped the people.

 One of the first things Bush did in office was institute what he called
"smart sanctions". What we really wanted to do was reform the  
oil-for-food
program, and we tried, but we got blocked.

> What good
> did the sanctions? That maybe Saddams power was stabilized? What were  
> the
> plans after sanctions (they had to be lifted at some point)?

  We didn't have any plans really, didn't know what to do.

> Had the US
> any interest that Iraq strengthened its economic ties to Europe?

 No, except where it led to corruption.

> Why was
> the US so interested to invade Iraq again?

  I don't know if I can articulate it very well, but it was basically a  
sense
that we needed to protect our flank in the war on terror. Does that  
make sense
or do I need to go into more detail?


> Liberating the people in iraq
> was certainly not a primary reason,

 Nope, that was considered a fringe benefit, but it might have tipped  
the
scales in Bush's thinking. Hard to say.

> that doesn't explain the sudden rush
> after doing nothing for 11 years.

 Ran out of patience? It wasn't quite "sudden" I know it seems that  
way, but there was probably a year of groundwork or more laid before we  
went in. Everyone knew we were
probably going to go in when we started working on the new resolution.

> Why did the US go in without the support
> of the UN to share the burden, such a war costs a lot of money, which  
> has
> to come from somewhere.

 Impatience, and by the time things had come to a head in the UN, all  
the other
diplomacy and operations were already in place. We'd already committed  
to our
arab allies that we were going to go in. It takes a year minimum to get  
a modern
army ready for this sort of invasion.

Perhaps if Hans Blix had seemed more aggressive and less cautious Bush  
would have
been willing to trust him more. I don't know.



> Sorry Pierce, as long as you stay at the level of some rather boring
> political games between the US and Europe, this will get nowhere.  
> Throwing
> Osama into this makes it only more ridiculous.

 I threw Osama in there because on 9/12/2001 when I was looking at Al  
Queda's
website, all I saw was Iraq this and Iraq that. Lets drop it though  
because
it does muddy the water.


> >   Fair enough that its shallow, but so are _your_ arguments. Its the
> > nature of the medium, that email discussions are a bit shallow. I  
> > never
> > said the prison torture cases are just a few individuals, I just
> > pointed out that they came to light not because some crusading  
> > reporter
> > uncovered them, but because the Army was prosecuting them.
>
> Wrong, the Army wasn't prosecuting anything, it was investigating after
> complaints of soldiers. Only the pictures brought the whole thing into
> movement and forced the Army to actually do something about this.

 I think we could both be right here. A criminal investigation is the  
first step
in prosecution. Before the story broke:

   1. The Brigadier General in charge of the prison and two other  
prisons had been
relieved for cause. Its a big deal when you relieve a BG.
   2. 17 soldiers had been suspended, including a battalion commander,  
and company
      commander.
   3. Charges are preferred against 6 more soldiers.
   4. 6 letters of reprimand, 2 soldiers dishonorably discharged.
   5. Proceedings begin against Ivan Frederick, which broke the story  
after one of
      the other accused gave a CD of the photos to an MP.

 So people were being actively prosecuted according to the timeline I'm  
seeing.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/iraqi_prisoner_abuse_timeline 
-1.html

 Pierce