Let's Talk about Iraq Again

A glitch in the system caused many worthwhile posts to be deleted. I have attempted to repost in order by copy and paste with what we have in the cache.

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]
December 17:
A wave of attacks have claimed dozens of lives across Iraq since Sunday with civilians targeted in many cases.

According to media reports, a series of attacks – targeting both Iraqi security forces and civilians – killed at least 25 people on Monday. The wave of violence follows a string of attacks on Sunday which left 19 people dead and another 77 wounded.

Sunday’s violence included a series of bomb blasts in the oil-rich province of Kirkuk.

newsroomamerica.com/story/33 … ives_.html

December 21:

Violence in Iraq from July to October hit its highest level in two years, a discouraging sign that – one year after the last US military vehicles exited the country – prompts questions about whether the situation on the ground in Iraq jeopardizes America’s national security interests.

csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2 … n-jeopardy

December 31:

BAGHDAD – At least three dozen people were killed in a string of attacks on Monday in Iraq, the police said, signaling a bloody end to a year of rising ethnic, political and sectarian troubles that showed little sign of easing.

post-gazette.com/stories/new … ad-668629/

January 1:
A series of bombings across Iraq has killed at least 22 people, including three policemen, officials said.

Around 50 people are also believed to have been injured in the violence, which struck the northern ethnically-mixed provinces of Kirkuk and Diyala and south of Baghdad in Babil province.

news.sky.com/story/1031865/iraq- … -in-blasts

January 3:
A car-bomb explosion tore through a crowd of Shiite pilgrims returning home Thursday from a religious commemoration, killing at least 27 and reinforcing fears of renewed sectarian violence, according to Iraqi officials.

The blast erupted late in the afternoon in the town of Musayyib, about 40 miles south of the Iraqi capital. It targeted worshipers returning from the Shiite holy city of Karbala following the climax of the religious commemoration known as Arbaeen.

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … -iraq?lite

January 3:
Bombs targeting Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad and police in southern Iraq killed more than 70 people on Wednesday in a wave of attacks during a major religious festival, police and hospital sources said.

Violence in Iraq has eased since the height of the war, but Islamists tied to al-Qaida are still potent, often targeting Shiite pilgrims to try to inflame sectarian tensions that drove Iraq close to civil war in 2006-2007.

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … -cops?lite

Yep, I am sure all Iraqis will have fond memories of these times.[/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]
Of course, we CAN compare Iraq’s economy before and after. We CAN compare Iraq’s political situation before and after. We CAN compare Iraq’s human rights situation before and after. We CAN compare Iraq’s death rate (remember Saddam’s wars and violence against his own people numbered in the millions). We CAN compare Iraq’s regional security and relations with neighboring countries. Come along everyone; sing along with me; you know the words: YES WE CAN!! YES WE CAN!!!

Still waiting to hear back from the supporters of that Lancet report that indicated that 500,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S. invasion and subsequent violence. The Iraqi government seems to indicate that the figures are 125,000 since the 2003 invasion…

Your posts seem to indicate that violence is rising again following the departure of the U.S. military. Would you be suggesting that the U.S. military should have stayed and thus that it was a force for good, stability and peace? [/quote]

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”] Or we could take a country, reduce it to ashes, then get excited about 10% growth as it starts from basically zero.

I’d rather have 1% growth of something substantial, than 10% growth of basically zero, but that is just me, I look at the math objectively and try not to pervert it to fit my ideological agenda, but then again, your agenda is less ideological these days and more based around starting threads for the sole purpose of baiting other posters into an argument as you come in with a fraction of the real picture and portray it as a panoramic view.

The best part is how you inflate the Saddam death numbers and then shit on others for inflating the post invasion numbers.

When it comes to self-reflection, you are a vampire, but don’t worry, that shit is hot right now with the kids, and oh yeah, so is internet baiting and idiot savantry.[/quote]

[quote=“finley”]

I believe he has a very good point right there. The world’s biggest warmongers and psychos, in my observation, seem to have been awfully hung up about pussy-related matters.

And as the GingerMan said back there, if you’re going to have a sodding war, at least do the job properly. Take out the entire leadership right down to the lowliest clipboard-wielding penpusher, install a puppet government, and rule the place like you own it. Because technically you do. Don’t just blow some shit up and expect everything to turn out just fine afterwards. If you’re not prepared to do that, don’t start anything. War is nasty, and pretending it’s not is just disgusting.[/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]

You probably think that Philippe Cousteau is pretty cool, too? Okay… so you think that this is a kaching smackdown… well, then… help your little friend figure out how this growth does not indicate that Iraq is literally booming… the growth has been fairly strong since 2003… we subtract the first two years as boom years following destruction of a war and then the slowdown of 2005-2008, but since 2009? enough to impress the Fred Smith-infected Economist Intelligence Unit? Note the “intelligence” part of the unit.

Oh how is that again? Ka-ching? Nice smackdown? Yeah… right back at you. Care to compare those growth rates to the rest of the Middle East? to the region? (Near East Asia) OR to the world? yeah… there’s a dear… get to it…[/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]

He was never our main man. Again your ignorance is astonishing… Go to sipri.org…. the US was NEVER his main supplier… Russia, China and France were with regard to conventional weapons… with 59 % , 13% and 12% and the US less than 1% and for chemical, nuclear and missile technology, Germany was 50%, Austria 8% and the US less than 2.5% all of which was computers and helicopters that COULD have dual use but were not sold with that intention and all sold during 1982-1985 with most from 1982-1983 when Iran our archenemy was set to take over Basra and thus threaten the Saudi oil fields.

Why is it that Germany and its DIRECT sale of equipment and technology which led DIRECTLY to Saddam’s arsenal and Germany’s continued sale of technology and financing to North Korea and Iran and previously LIbya and Syria never gets a moan out of you “concerned international citizens (read: fuckwits)” but the US and its very minor sales of very much indirect support during a particularly crucial year does? and would you suggest that allowing Iran to beat Saddam’s Iraq was in anyone’s interests? does it also shock your tender sensibilities that the entire West also supported Stalin against Hitler and to a FAR GREATER degree?

Less is more? Hah! the only thing less that we see around here is indicators of your intelligence and this certainly has led to more bullshit.

[quote]on a lighter note:
Layers of Retardation![/quote]

Why lighter? and if any post is worthy of competition in the special Olympics of intelligent reading of foreign policy, your post takes the cake!!![/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]

Oooohh how clever!!! EXCEPT that we KNOW which countries sold which technologies and weapons systems to Iraq and why coincidentally Germany, France and Russia in particular were against the invasion. Those technologies and weapons were never accounted for albeit also never discovered in the aftermath of the invasion but it is interesting that we are all worried NOW about Syria’s chemical weapons and Obama has warned Assad not to use them… strange… can anyone tell me who sold Assad his chemical weapons? and the nuclear technology and equipment that had him constructing a plant until the Israelis bombed it in 2007? I mean we ALL KNOW where Saddam got his equipment from and we ALL KNOW that this technology and equipment was NOT found after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 but where did Syria get this? Care to share? speaking of “fought by fools.” I think that “wandering the halls of history searching for justification” is just about right. Now, one simple question: WHERE did Syria get the weapons that the Obama administration is threatening it not to use? Hmm…[/quote]

[quote=“headhonchoII”]
What difficult to understand Fred? Iraq suffered through Iran-Iraq war and two further wars and was under sanctions for decades. It also has a large portion of the worlds best crude oil.

If they didn’t have some economic growth at this stage they’d have to be all called El Murphy or something![/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]
Got an image to share with us Deuce Dropper? It is not showing up on my screen… sorta kinda like your idea of an argument

Anyway, got to thinking about something funny… Syria has about the same number of deaths now as Iraq but there are no peace protests, there are no people marching in the street, no one is shouting for Russia and Iran to stop arming Assad… no one is organizing any music festivals to share the pain of the Syrian people…

And then there is the need to make a difference. Bands get together to provide aid for Africa even though 50 to 70 years of the same have shown to have had almost no effect on poverty rates and bands get together and people light candles and march to deal with issues such as climate change despite the very little evidence that there is anything that anyone can do about a perhaps nonexistent problem but “we have to act” and we must try to “make a difference.” But the true differences have not come from the well meaning marching (and where are the objective standards?) but from countries like China and India and Russia and Eastern Europe and other places throwing out the very policies of socialism and income redistribution that the marchers are most in support of… and what has truly made a difference for peace and democracy? Not the marchers but the US military getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam and NATO for getting rid of Qadaffi. So comparing the human rights indexes what do we expect to find? Well, yes… of course there would be protests against the US and actors and actresses and other “celebrities” showing “solidarity” with Chavez and Castro and … nearly anyone else that their little minds determine to be a person of interest and that usually is directly correlated to how anti-US that person is.

So, why the need to make a difference with climate change but not in removing Saddam? Was Saddam really not that bad? Is Iraq really not that much better than under Saddam? Is Assad and Russian and Iranian support for his violent crackdown really not worth one little march anywhere much less the hundreds of thousands that marched in EVERY world capital prior to the US invasion of Iraq?

I really must learn to dress and talk like Philippe Cousteau… I see clearly now that it is about the APPEARANCE of “making a difference” rather than actually doing what is needed to actually do so that counts most[/quote]

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
How about a graph of Iraq’s GDP over the last, say, thirty years? The post-modernist relativistic bullshit “discourse” in this thread is a waste of everyone’s time.[/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]
30 years of charts? Cannot cut and paste into this for some reason but from the figures… almost no oil production until 1930 and then a gradual increase to 1 million barrels of oil per day in the mid to late 1960s with this eventually rising to more than 3 million by 1979… and then it drops to next to nothing during the early years of the Iran Iraq war to increase by 1985 to more than 2 million to crash again in 1991 during the First Persian Gulf War to rise again to 2.5 million to decline to about 1.5 million during the Second Gulf War to trickle up over six years to 2.7 million in 2007 and now set to increase to 7 million barrels of oil per day from 2014 to gradually decline (assuming no new discoveries or technologies) to about 3 million by about 2050… unless something happens you do the math and given that 90 percent of Iraq’s exports and revenue come from oil… that should be a pretty good and simple economic chart for you to figure out. Feel free to go and find any other figures. They should pretty much match up to what I have provided. I think that the economic factors are eminently clear. It is the politics of the situation that is upsetting to those who did not support the fact that there was a solid reason for wanting to remove Saddam (and also very justifiable reasons for being against the war). BUT when we speak of economics, removing Saddam was good for oil production and exports and thus ultimately VERY GOOD for most Iraqis and the nation as a whole… unless you believe that money is the root of all evil .[/quote]

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]

About ten years is all I can find on such short notice.[/quote]

[quote=“fred smith”]

Many thanks… Your graph would also buttress my view that 10 percent growth is not based on nothing and that it represents a real economic achievement. Far from starting from a destroyed Iraq, it represents a major shift in growth from a previously solid economy albeit one based primarily on oil exports NONE of which is controlled by the US.[/quote]

Iraq: Neocon Earthly Paradise or Still A Bloody Mess?

[quote]ON THE last day of 2012, a year after the last American troops left Iraq, ending nearly nine years of military occupation, at least 36 Iraqis perished in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country that targeted policemen, government officials and ordinary people of varied sects. According to Iraq Body Count (IBC), a meticulous mainly American and British monitoring group, the overall toll in deaths of civilians due to political violence last year was 4,471, slightly more than the year before. On average, there were 18 bombings and 53 violent deaths a week. Iraq is hardly a country at peace. . .

Iraq’s main oil-producing areas, in the south, are generally free of trouble, with exports boosted to 2.8m barrels a day, the highest rate for three decades.Yet few Iraqis are celebrating. That extra money has yet to improve public services or to raise family incomes appreciably. The underlying violence still amounts to what the IBC terms “an entrenched conflict”. Worse, the factors that feed the strife are still at play. [color=blue]In particular, Nuri al-Maliki, the tough Shia Muslim who has been prime minister since 2006, shows increasingly authoritarian, sectarian and democracy-sapping tendencies, ruthlessly ousting or outmanoeuvring rivals, and using underhand methods to impose his will. He is widely viewed as a would-be dictator, tolerant of corruption, reliant on the backing of Iran and willing cynically to stir up strife between Iraq’s minority of Sunni Arabs and its Shia majority, or with Iraq’s fiercely autonomous Kurds in the north, to maintain his grip on power in Baghdad.[/color] . . .

The civil war next door in Syria, with its increasingly bitter sectarian flavour, has not helped. While Iraqi Sunni groups, including some tied to al-Qaeda, lend arms and fighters to Syria’s rebels, [color=blue]Mr Maliki’s government quietly aids Bashar Assad’s embattled regime.[/color] . . .

Iraq is still a violent mess. Its democracy, imposed by the Americans, looks fragile. And the prospect of real harmony between the three main ethnic and sectarian components—Arab Shias, Arab Sunnis and Kurds—looks as distant as ever.[/quote]-- The Economist, Jan. 3, 2013

Thank you for that article. Does it say Iraq’s economy is not growing as fast as its sister organization claimed? No. Does it claim that oil production is not soaring? No. It states that Iraq’s democracy is “fragile,” but at least it has one. Which other Middle Eastern nations outside Israel have one? and that the money is not trickling down or that it is not being used to provide effective public services… hmmm… and these are conditions that we are seeing in which neighboring nations? regionally?

egypt

lebanon

turkey (depending on your view, it may be Europe, it may be ME)

egypt

lebanon

turkey (depending on your view, it may be Europe, it may be ME)[/quote]

I would say Lebanon and Egypt are debatable at the moment.

Maybe old Fred should say, functioning democracy?

egypt

lebanon

turkey (depending on your view, it may be Europe, it may be ME)[/quote]

I would say Lebanon and Egypt are debatable at the moment.

Maybe old Fred should say, functioning democracy?[/quote]

If Fred were paying attention rather than having neoconservative wet dreams he’d be thinking ‘He’s Ba-a-ack . . …’ right about now.

Iraq’s Road Back to Dictatorship

[quote]Maliki’s authoritarianism has some way to go before it reaches the proportions of Saddam Hussein’s terror. But the charge sheet is growing: the night of the US withdrawal, troops and tanks led by Maliki’s son surrounded the houses of his vice-president Tariq al-Hashemi and two other members of the Sunni-dominated Iraqiyya coalition. On Sunday Hashemi was sentenced to death in absentia, for masterminding death squads against rivals. Confessions were tortured out of three of his bodyguards, one of whom died from his injuries. Iraqiyya, which won the most seats at the last election in 2010, is not the first victim of Maliki’s power grab.

As Toby Dodge, a leading Iraqi scholar, has chronicled, Maliki gained complete control over Iraq’s security forces, subverting the formal chain of command, moving the office of commander-in-chief into his office, and creating provincial command centres, commanded by generals who were handpicked by him. Under him, the Iraq special operations forces, described as the best in the Middle East, became a praetorian guard, dubbed “Fedayeen al-Maliki”. The same goes for the intelligence services and the judiciary. Having seen off those Sunnis who downed their arms and tried politics in 2010, Maliki’s next target will be the Kurds, whose autonomy he will threaten, and then the Sadrists. The end product will be a centralised state not unlike Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Like Putin, Maliki practises a form of competitive authoritarianism. This employs the toolkit of a democratic state (a parliament, set elections, a constitution) for a purpose that is anything but – the maintenance of power at all costs, torture and death squads included.

It should therefore come as no surprise that al-Qaida, which was decimated when Sunni tribal chiefs turned against it, is back in business. Maliki’s quest for domination could drive his country back into civil war.[/quote]

THIS is my original question/comment… I posted a link showing that Iraq’s oil sector was booming and that this was driving record… world-record economic growth…

While the many replies have been… interesting… most seem to be a long way off answering my original post/comment/assertion/question.

HOW MUCH of Iraq’s oil does the U.S. control? HOW MUCH control does the U.S. have over Iraq’s oil supply? HOW MUCH of the argument that the war was “all about oil” still stands the test of time?

THIS is my original question/comment… I posted a link showing that Iraq’s oil sector was booming and that this was driving record… world-record economic growth…

While the many replies have been… interesting… most seem to be a long way off answering my original post/comment/assertion/question.

HOW MUCH of Iraq’s oil does the U.S. control? HOW MUCH control does the U.S. have over Iraq’s oil supply? HOW MUCH of the argument that the war was “all about oil” still stands the test of time?[/quote]

Operation Fool Me Once wasn’t about oil any more than Operation Fool Me Twice will be.

What was it about? And what will the next one be about?

What was it about? And what will the next one be about?[/quote]
It was about rubbish. And the next one will be about rubbish. Im tired of you all fighting. Lets all be happy now.

Less rubbish, more being happy. THAT is my motto.

What was it about? And what will the next one be about?[/quote]

It was about hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction – just as the next Operation Fool is shaping up to be.

Ummm. CLINTON as in president and the entire Congress approved the Iraq Liberation Act in 1997 which called for regime change.

In the declaration of war (and there was one in this case unlike Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo), there were 23 articles stating the reasons for the war and ONLY THREE dealt with wmds.

[quote=“fred smith”]Ummm. CLINTON as in president and the entire Congress approved the Iraq Liberation Act in 1997 which called for regime change.

In the declaration of war (and there was one in this case unlike Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo), there were 23 articles stating the reasons for the war and ONLY THREE dealt with wmds.[/quote]

Right. Operation Fool Me Once had little to do with weapons of mass destruction. :unamused:

Hopefully you at least recognize now that they were hallucinations but something tells me that you’re a dead ender at heart.

You can repeat this as often as you want but there was no “fooling.” 17 UN resolutions over 13 years and a previous invasion and war in Kuwait and a previous war and invasion in Iran and a previous war and humanitarian crisis against both the Shias in the South and the Kurds in the North provided ample evidence of what we were dealing with. I suppose that you do not think that Iran with a nuclear weapon or North Korea or Pakistan with similar weapons is a threat of destabilizing force in any way… There, there, now… let’s run you a nice hot bath. You have had a long day…

You can repeat this as often as you want but there was no “fooling.” 17 UN resolutions over 13 years and a previous invasion and war in Kuwait and a previous war and invasion in Iran and a previous war and humanitarian crisis against both the Shias in the South and the Kurds in the North provided ample evidence of what we were dealing with. I suppose that you do not think that Iran with a nuclear weapon or North Korea or Pakistan with similar weapons is a threat of destabilizing force in any way… There, there, now… let’s run you a nice hot bath. You have had a long day…[/quote]

Everyone else here knows better because we were all there too but you and your “precious” run along now because we’ve got better things to do than to waste any more time on your hallucinations. Ta-ta.

I would have to say that anyone who thinks this is not a destabilizing force needs their head examined.

Did I just agree with Hunglikeabluewhalefred??? Now I am really confused.

I better disagree.

Fred, do keep in mind when Iran decides to nuke Israel and whoever else they decide is Satan (little and great), the 12th Imam will come. Surely this is stabilizing?

Definitely agreed.

Apparently so for botht he agreed and confused.

Mabye that is a good idea :slight_smile:

Well, it would stabilize one problem or protracted disagreement and surely that is good? right? no? er… so confusing, don’t you agree? :slight_smile:

[quote=“fred smith”]Ummm. CLINTON as in president and the entire Congress approved the Iraq Liberation Act in 1997 which called for regime change.

In the declaration of war (and there was one in this case unlike Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo), there were 23 articles stating the reasons for the war and ONLY THREE dealt with wmds.[/quote]

Minor points, but:

  1. It’s the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. There was no such Act in 1997.
  2. 38 House Representatives voted against the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 on the grounds it may lead to war.
  3. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did not authorize the use of military force against Iraq. It provided financial assistance to foreign groups opposed to the Hussein Regime.
  4. Congress did not formally declare war against Iraq in 2002. Congress has not declared war since 1942.

Fine… 1998 not 1997 but still under President Clinton.

AND if you want to be exact… Congress “authorized” war against Iraq; it did not “declare” war against Iraq BUT it was a Congressionally approved action. Satisfied?

Fair enough!