Democracy in Iraq

wiseones2cents

solas wrote:

some really long posts in there, but I managed to stick it out..phwew.

I think wo2c's has made a valiant argument and one which over time has been put on the back burner, it becomes very acceptable to take these issues for granted after a little while. It's nice to have a reminder.

Thank you.If I had more time I would give an even better argument, packed with documentation to back it. Though I have already been through these debates many times and it gets tiresome. So I know what I am talking about.

Plus I am spending alot of time on the Christian board here also.

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

Pulling numbers out of the air means nothing.It Specifically gives you a number it Was Almost 10,999Mega watts. Your memory needs some evidence backing it up. In July it was at 4000-5000 Mega Watts. Their target was 7500. They didn't reach their target. Though if you have new info I'd like to see it.

No new figures. From the very last paragraph of the article you provided, "By early 1992, Iraq had restarted 75 percent of the national grid"
"existing generating capacity of about 9,300 megawatts (MW) in December 1990"

75% of 9,300MW is 7,000MW, plus or minus change. Between then and the beginning of the 2003 war, generating capacity was lost. The average report for pre-war generating , typified by https://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050603.htm is on the order of 4,400MW, a 40% drop, with no bombs dropped whatsoever. Those are the figures, US military action had nothing to do with it.

I had a pretty large library of data that I had to delete most because my computer's capacity was getting too full. I had actual government PDF documents claiming so.
Though I've decided to access some. And I will bring you some things you might find interesting.

You 'had' the documents, and then decided to 'access' some? Small temporal issue there. However...

Here is some stuff you will find Interesting.
1982 US FBI chief William Webster meets with the Emir of Kuwait and plots the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies would steal $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil, and which provided one of the main incentives for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

1983It was recently revealed that a purpose of Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam in '83 was to negotiate a deal for an oil pipeline to be built by the company Bechtel (now in line for post-war construction contracts) through Iraq. Despite much work and dirty-dealing by US officials, the plan would later by rejected by Saddam in '85.

Congratulations on your word-for-word cut-and-paste from http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index4.php (not a PDF document I should add)

Might I also inquire as to why an FBI chief would be plotting with Kuwait to steal oil? Foreign operationsa are the purview of agencies such as the CIA. FBI's remit is domestic US law enforcement.

You will also find this Link VERY Interesting(first paragraph). http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/iraqgate.htm
though if you want slanting information go down to Iraggate- the story so far and go down the Dick Cheney in red. There are sources for the links below the paragraphs. Also Just do a internet search Kuwait slant drilling.

You do realise that the links that are relied on are not exactly bastions of paragon unbiasedness? Have you had a look at Americanpolitics.com, where the claim of slant drilling was made in an editorial?

And yes, I have done a search on Kuwait Slant Drilling. That's why I concluded that any apparently unbiased sources are using the words 'alleged' or 'accused', since nothing definitive appears to be out there.

Austria NEVER had access to the mediteranean.

Of course not. The Battleship Wien (Vienna, in German, just in case you missed it) (http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/wien.jpg) cruised solely up the Danube river... The Hapsburg empire only split up less than a century ago, but evidently, WWI is beyond your frame of history.

Iraq Still has access to the sea. Therefore the State is legitimate though I'd still prefer they Unite and/or share their wealth with Iraq.

What, a state is only legitimate if they have access to the sea? Quick! Tell the Swiss! The Luxembourgs! The Slovaks! They are illegitimate states! Or do you refer to the Italians, Germans, Belgians, French who are cruelly denying them a sea port? (Actually, I find the fact that you didn't realise that Iraq had a coastline (And a navy, at that) to be a bit worrisome)

Bombing 10,000 people as they were retreating as doing its job?Its job was to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Not wage war in another country.

So you would claim that Iraqi military units in Iraq should not be bombed, even though a state of open conflict exists? Interesting definition there.

Thats like me beating somone up with a bat or numb chucks or a machine gun and then bragging about what a tough guy I am. Americans are pathetic that way.

The daft thing was that the Iraqis knew damned well that they wouldn't be able to stand up to American/Coalition military capabilities. If I go up to a tiger, and start annoying it, I think I'm likely to deserve whatever that foolishness gets.

They weren't given the option to withdraw? Thats pretty odd dont you think?

Sure they were. After the requests were declined, the 'withdraw' option was turned into a 'surrender' option, which wasn't on the table before the fighting started.

Or is your version of history made up in your own mind by twisting facts?I've read your definition of Iraq invading Saudi Arabia and it is laughable. It says that 1 division while retreating went into Saudi Arabia. That does not constitue Invasion of Saudi Arabia. pathetic.

So you generally feel happy with countering General Khaled Bin Sultan (Saudi general in charge at Khafji) when he said that "In every conflict there is a moment when the tide is seen to turn. In the Gulf War, the Battle of Khafji was such a moment"

Just to give you an idea of scale here, six divisions were moving in that operation, not one. (One corps moved). The entire US Army right now fields a total of nine divisions. This 'retreat in the wrong direction' involved a force twice the size that it took for the Americans to capture Iraq in 2003. Had the operation been a success, it would have been a massive coup for Iraq, and might have even split the coaltion against him.

The By product of the will to live is Adrenaline? What Science books are you reading from? That is ridiculous. FEAR of death causes adrenalin which sharpens the senses increases reflex rates and allows the blood to pump faster, so as to better react to potentially dangerous situations.

Why is one afraid? It is because one wishes to live. Adrenaline is a useful tool in achieving that goal.

Yes you must not. You would lose.

Care to take me up on that? Give the word, I'll start another thread.

Ok. Lets get back on Subject. American Democracy in Iraq.

As I said I haven't fully read up the latest constitution however the first constitution allowed forigen businesses to own 100% iraqi assets

Read the fine print. From the Harpers link you provided, 100% "outside of the natural resources sector". This means that even under Bremers' administration, oil ownership was safe.

However, I suggest you read up on the latest constitution then, just to be sure we're arguing from the same page.

NTM

solas

wo2cs wrote:

Thank you.If I had more time I would give an even better argument, packed with documentation to back it. Though I have already been through these debates many times and it gets tiresome. So I know what I am talking about.

Plus I am spending alot of time on the Christian board here also.

while I have no doubt the christianity forum provides the oppertunity to fine tune debating skills, it would probably benfeit your argument to continue to keep both topics seperate and not deter from the issue at hand.

Still, after three years of war, its good to see how peoples views have progressed with it. Some people (who's views I appreciated 3 years ago) have become very complacent, not that they have forgotten their values they just seem more inclined to justify US actions now that things have settled somewhat.
Interesting reading.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

No new figures. From the very last paragraph of the article you provided, "By early 1992, Iraq had restarted 75 percent of the national grid"
"existing generating capacity of about 9,300 megawatts (MW) in December 1990"

75% of 9,300MW is 7,000MW, plus or minus change. Between then and the beginning of the 2003 war, generating capacity was lost. The average report for pre-war generating , typified by https://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050603.htm is on the order of 4,400MW, a 40% drop, with no bombs dropped whatsoever. Those are the figures, US military action had nothing to do with it.

huh? You said Iraq seems to have less Electrical power capacity now because they have more Electrical appliances. I have proven you wrong but yet for 3 straight posts you've been contradicting yourself?

They Had 9,300 megawatts of capacity. now they are at 4000-5000

You 'had' the documents, and then decided to 'access' some? Small temporal issue there. However...

Which word didn't you understand? I had it but had to delete many files because my computer's storage capacity was reaching its maximum.

Congratulations on your word-for-word cut-and-paste from http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index4.php (not a PDF document I should add)

Might I also inquire as to why an FBI chief would be plotting with Kuwait to steal oil? Foreign operationsa are the purview of agencies such as the CIA. FBI's remit is domestic US law enforcement.

Actually he was both FBI and CIA director. hmmmmmm. Interesting.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=William+webster+Emir+of+Kuwait&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dd3557225e6d31647%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3DWilliam%2Bwebster%2BEmir%2Bof%2BKuwait%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thirdworldtraveler.com%252FCIA%252520Hits%252FIraq_CIAHits.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSBoom%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thirdworldtraveler.com%2FCIA%252520Hits%2FIraq_CIAHits.html

You do realise that the links that are relied on are not exactly bastions of paragon unbiasedness? Have you had a look at Americanpolitics.com, where the claim of slant drilling was made in an editorial?

And yes, I have done a search on Kuwait Slant Drilling. That's why I concluded that any apparently unbiased sources are using the words 'alleged' or 'accused', since nothing definitive appears to be out there.

Yes though I have seen government sources also. My guess is they first tried to purge access to the net and then fired mis-information to deny it happened.

Of course not. The Battleship Wien (Vienna, in German, just in case you missed it) (http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/wien.jpg) cruised solely up the Danube river... The Hapsburg empire only split up less than a century ago, but evidently, WWI is beyond your frame of history.

Apparently so. I haven't studied Austrian History, Though if they did take away their access, that could explain alot of things.

What, a state is only legitimate if they have access to the sea? Quick! Tell the Swiss! The Luxembourgs! The Slovaks! They are illegitimate states! Or do you refer to the Italians, Germans, Belgians, French who are cruelly denying them a sea port? (Actually, I find the fact that you didn't realise that Iraq had a coastline (And a navy, at that) to be a bit worrisome)

Try to take away Water access to a country that has access to water and see what happens.

So you would claim that Iraqi military units in Iraq should not be bombed, even though a state of open conflict exists? Interesting definition there.

The Americans were there to Defend Kuwait. Not Invade Iraq. The fact that you do not see something wrong with Americans dropping bombs on people retreating, says something about your frame of mind. Though America was planning to invade Iraq anyways so they figured they'd kill 2 birds with one stone.

The daft thing was that the Iraqis knew damned well that they wouldn't be able to stand up to American/Coalition military capabilities. If I go up to a tiger, and start annoying it, I think I'm likely to deserve whatever that foolishness gets.

They seem to be doing fine now. America only picks on weaker countries. And then brags how tough they are. Though they got their butts kicked in Vietnam.

Lucky America toned down its rhetoric in regards to North Korea or they would have been taught some manners very quickly.

Sure they were. After the requests were declined, the 'withdraw' option was turned into a 'surrender' option, which wasn't on the table before the fighting started.

And that justifies the slaughter of a retreating army? Only in your mind.

So you generally feel happy with countering General Khaled Bin Sultan (Saudi general in charge at Khafji) when he said that "In every conflict there is a moment when the tide is seen to turn. In the Gulf War, the Battle of Khafji was such a moment"

Whatever. tell us again how Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia.LMAO!!!

Just to give you an idea of scale here, six divisions were moving in that operation, not one. (One corps moved). The entire US Army right now fields a total of nine divisions. This 'retreat in the wrong direction' involved a force twice the size that it took for the Americans to capture Iraq in 2003. Had the operation been a success, it would have been a massive coup for Iraq, and might have even split the coaltion against him.

LOL. I'm still waiting for you to Show me any document stating Iraq INVADED Saudi Arabia.

Why is one afraid? It is because one wishes to live. Adrenaline is a useful tool in achieving that goal.

:rolleyes: Give it up already. Not too many bright people are exilerated from the fear of being injured or killed. Their is a word for those people and its not smart.:D

Care to take me up on that? Give the word, I'll start another thread.

I am very tempted to. I have debted it before many times. Though I am trying to finish up these debates in both boards. I have been given another task else where.

Read the fine print. From the Harpers link you provided, 100% "outside of the natural resources sector". This means that even under Bremers' administration, oil ownership was safe.

However, I suggest you read up on the latest constitution then, just to be sure we're arguing from the same page.

NTM

Still, doesn't it sound like the Iraqi people are being looted by foreigners?
Now that doesn't sound fair at all. I wonder who came up with such a unfair constitution?hmmmmmm. Who ever they are they are corupt.;)

As I said I haven't fully read up the latest constitution however the first constitution allowed forigen businesses to own 100% iraqi assets and remove up to 100% profits from the country without being taxed (no other country in the world allows this). It also disallowed any later governments recinding certain laws.

Manic Moran

tell us again how Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia.LMAO!!!

I give up. I can't continue to rationally debate someone who has lost touch with reality.

What other term would you use for a situation where a large component of the armed ground forces of a foreign country enters your borders uninvited, by use of opposed force? A courtesy visit?

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

However, I suggest you read up on the latest constitution then, just to be sure we're arguing from the same page.

<Pedantry>
As I've already pointed out to wo2c, its not a constitution. Its an incomplete, draft of a constitution. One of the main tasks of the new government will be to put a constitution into force.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really clarify situations for anyone. We can criticise the existing draft all we like, but thats like criticising some of the crackpot ideas which get proposed by governments all over the world from time to time (The House or Senate in the US is often a good source for this type fo thing). On the other hand, its also easy to misconstrue the absence of a constitution as carte-blanche for anyone to do anything.

</pedantry>

AS for w02c himself....well...I've given up asking the questions he's refusing to address (said refusal being on the grounds that I'm just reasking questions he's previously refused to adress), which left me with only my question about how someone who can preach that violence begest violence could (sanely and self-consistently) advocate that the Palestinians give diplomacy a chance, but return to violence if diplomacy fails.

The response?

The International Community has failed Palestine in the past because the Zionists have alot of Influence in America and therefore the UN.

What has this to do with explaining how simple it is that violence only leads to violence, but is a valid option when its in the name of a cause w02c believes in???

I don't know. However, I'm also 100% certain that I'm not going to get any sort of meaningful answer if I press the issue, so I think I'll join MM and give up at this point. I no longer see a discussion with enough merit to be worth continuing here.

jc