Lieberman wants to bomb Iran

[nino_savatte]

And why the hell not? free trade has done more for the extermination of poverty than aid or socialism ever did.

I think you have that arse about face: free trade was responsible for the slave trade and the widespread poverty currently seen in developing nations. Free trade gives rise to situations where one powerful country dumps its cheaper products onto another country's markets, thus creating poverty. Think I'm making this up? Have a look at India's economic mauling at the hands of Britain in the 18th/19th centuries; or the way the US dumped its cheap rice onto Liberia's markets, which put farmers out of work and which led to unrest and the brutal civil wars that followed.

That's your beloved free trade.

 

[Peet]

there's a big difference between free trade and exploitation.

 

[rhys gethin]

there's a big difference between free trade and exploitation.

Same difference as between robbery and theft. Without exploitation the system doesn't work. Same difference, come to think of it, as between colonialism and 'introducing democracy into Iraq' - criminality wearing its Sunday suit, that's all. Have you never read any serious history? You sound like a first-year student from some thatcherite backwater, quacking. Come out of your wood and examine the world. Even nazis can learn.

 

[TomUS]

Because democratic states generally spekaing don't produce terrorists who demolish buildings with aircraft.

Actually they do it all the time. The Iraq shock & awe for example. Those bombers & those who issue the orders don't define themselves as terrorists but I imagine those the bombs land on do.

Now Lieberman wants to do it to Iran. He must have no idea what such an action would result in or simply doesn't care.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well you are right. What I suppose I meant is the occupation, ie, tanks on the street would end. If Iraq does become a free state I wouldnt be surprised if there was a US military presence.

In which case "the occupation", ipso facto, would not have ended. An occupation has little to do with "tanks on the street" (that's purely a phase of "the occupation"), and a lot to do with the continuance of the "military presence" and their motivation(s) and behaviour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, yes, thanks to the EU, our sovereignty is very much in question.

Depends whether you're foolish enough to listen to the spieling of ideologues, or sensible enough to actually spend time reading the appropriate rulings or explanations thereof.

But hey, if it gives you a hard-on to believe politically-motivated tabloids, who am I to deny you such cheap sexual thrills.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes actually. I live on a farm and don't own a TV.

Don't turn your backs, kids, it's Tony Martin!

 

[Detroit City]

Crazy Joe is at it again. He wants to make us "safer" by bombing Iran.

ok, fine, we can bomb Iran AFTER Israel lets the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in to inspect their nuclear programs. If memory serves me correct, the IAEA has never been allowed to set foot into the Zionsit homeland.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And why the hell not? free trade has done more for the extermination of poverty than aid or socialism ever did.

Free trade doesn't exist. It's a phantom deployed by economists of a certain bent to dupe the credulous.

As for the rest of your sentence, it's that old error of yours of confusing opinion with fact rearing it's head again, by the look of things.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think you have that arse about face: free trade was responsible for the slave trade and the widespread poverty currently seen in developing nations. Free trade gives rise to situations where one powerful country dumps its cheaper products onto another country's markets, thus creating poverty. Think I'm making this up? Have a look at India's economic mauling at the hands of Britain in the 18th/19th centuries; or the way the US dumped its cheap rice onto Liberia's markets, which put farmers out of work and which led to unrest and the brutal civil wars that followed.

That's your beloved free trade.

Ah, that's not free trade though, that's unilateral market manipulation.

Free trade means trade without tariffs or any other form of economic protectionism, something that is, given the socio-economic pressures that trade exerts on some industries and the need for politicians to reassure and mollify those affected industries through protective measures, impossible to pragmatically put into practice.

 

[nino_savatte]

there's a big difference between free trade and exploitation.

Let's move on to the other issue that I mentioned: carpetbaggers, I take it you have no problem with the flight of capital out of Iraq - non?

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, that's not free trade though, that's unilateral market manipulation.

Free trade means trade without tariffs or any other form of economic protectionism, something that is, given the socio-economic pressures that trade exerts on some industries and the need for politicians to reassure and mollify those affected industries through protective measures, impossible to pragmatically put into practice.

Sure but isn't this sort of thing often described or "dressed up" as free trade?

 

[Peet]

In which case "the occupation", ipso facto, would not have ended. An occupation has little to do with "tanks on the street" (that's purely a phase of "the occupation"), and a lot to do with the continuance of the "military presence" and their motivation(s) and behaviour.

So RAF Lakenheath and alconbury were proof of US occupation of Britain?

 

[Peet]

Sure but isn't this sort of thing often described or "dressed up" as free trade?

YEs. See EU tarrifs on African goods.

 

[Peet]

Depends whether you're foolish enough to listen to the spieling of ideologues, or sensible enough to actually spend time reading the appropriate rulings or explanations thereof.

Well when ministers are restricted from implementing domestic policy by European law, I'd call that a loss of sovereignty. However, the government could repeal the acts that give them that power so technically we still have the power. We just refuse to excersise it.

 

[Peet]

Actually they do it all the time. The Iraq shock & awe for example. Those bombers & those who issue the orders don't define themselves as terrorists but I imagine those the bombs land on do.

I would agree with you if I had a similarly childish perception of what US bombing activity was. If we were talking firestorms the like of Dresden I might agree with you.

 

[Peet]

Let's move on to the other issue that I mentioned: carpetbaggers, I take it you have no problem with the flight of capital out of Iraq - non?

If you mean theft of state assets then there is a seruious problem and I suspect there will be corporates and individuals who get away with it. Much like the UK.

However, a liberal democracy is more likely to get money flowing in to balance it than a repressive islamist regime or a clinet state of Iran.

 

[Peet]

Ah, that's not free trade though, that's unilateral market manipulation.

Free trade means trade without tariffs or any other form of economic protectionism, something that is, given the socio-economic pressures that trade exerts on some industries and the need for politicians to reassure and mollify those affected industries through protective measures, impossible to pragmatically put into practice.

I broadly agree with this but bilateral treaties with Iraq could succeed. Assuming the EU will allow it.

 

[nino_savatte]

If you mean theft of state assets then there is a seruious problem and I suspect there will be corporates and individuals who get away with it. Much like the UK.

However, a liberal democracy is more likely to get money flowing in to balance it than a repressive islamist regime or a clinet state of Iran.

Let's get this straight, so you approve of the flight of capital out of the country and into the coffers of US corporations? Is this correct?

There is no "liberal democracy" in Iraq, just a puppet government that takes its cue from Washington. In that respect, it is little different to any of the governments that were formed between 1921 and 1958.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I would agree with you if I had a similarly childish perception of what US bombing activity was. If we were talking firestorms the like of Dresden I might agree with you.

If you're thinking in terms of 'precision bombing' ensuring low casualties, that turns out to be mostly propaganda.

See e.g. http://www.comw.org/pda/0402rm9.html

In any case, it's extremely unlikely that bombing Iran's nuclear programme would have the effect of making Iranian nuclear weapons less likely.

See e.g. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/airstrikes.php

 

[ViolentPanda]

So RAF Lakenheath and alconbury were proof of US occupation of Britain?

Not "were", are.

What else do you call the colonisation of land outwith the laws of the country it resides in, if not "occupied land"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well when ministers are restricted from implementing domestic policy by European law, I'd call that a loss of sovereignty. However, the government could repeal the acts that give them that power so technically we still have the power. We just refuse to excersise it.

The only political fields in which the UK has "lost sovereignty" are those that Mrs. Thatcher and then Mr. Major ceded in (IIRC) 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993. Any other restrictions on policy are adopted on a voluntary basis. There's also the (constitutionally-enshrined) principle of subsidiarity to protect the member states.

Still, it's easier to listen to and believe politically-motivated media and politicians than to look into facts, isn't it?

 

[Peet]

Not "were", are.

What else do you call the colonisation of land outwith the laws of the country it resides in, if not "occupied land"?

US controlled RAF stations abide by US military law with the express permission of the Uk government. That does not constitute an occupation.

 

[Peet]

The only political fields in which the UK has "lost sovereignty" are those that Mrs. Thatcher and then Mr. Major ceded in (IIRC) 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993. Any other restrictions on policy are adopted on a voluntary basis.

I agree. We have lost a degree of sovereignty and it WAS the tories responsible.

 

[Aldebaran]

I would agree with you if I had a similarly childish perception of what US bombing activity was.

What on earth do you think is the impact of the countless bombs, cluster bombs, DU rockets and missiles? Flowers and feathers slowly tumbling down from the sky on people's heads?

Sorry, I have to leave this thread before I loose my temper or start vomitting.

Peet do yourself a big service.
Go to Iraq to stay with the people on the receiving end.
I hope for you that you survive that horror and when you are safely back home you aren't a victim of the DU contamination. It comes to all the other horror, shall go on poisoning the Iraqis indefinitely and - since wind and sand do not stop at borders - all those in the neighbouring coutries (which includes mine) and far beyond.

Maybe after having first hand experience with your Heroes and their murderous tactics you are able to imagine what it is in cold bloody hellish reality for the people who can't get away to a safe sheltered home in some Western wood.

salaam.

 

[Peet]

If you're thinking in terms of 'precision bombing' ensuring low casualties, that turns out to be mostly propaganda.

See e.g. http://www.comw.org/pda/0402rm9.html

Will read later.

In any case, it's extremely unlikely that bombing Iran's nuclear programme would have the effect of making Iranian nuclear weapons less likely.

See e.g. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/airstrikes.php

I would not advocate bombing of nuclear facilities. I would advocate bombing of border military bases which are assisting the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[ZAMB]

The planet where the US is pumping billions of dallars into infrastructure that remained in tatters from the Iran/Iraq war.

Tell me again WHO desroyed Iraq's infrastructure??? Wasn't it the great old democratic USA, with their wars and sanctions? And didn't they, and the British, encourage the Iran/Iraq war, if you want to go back that far - providing weapons, sattelite pictures etc in the hope that Saddam could wipe out Iran, a country which had rejected their pet dictator?

HEALTH CARE

Before Iraq suffered through an embargo and two wars with the United States starting in 1990, its healthcare system was considered one of the best in the Middle East. Iraq had well-trained physicians and modern facilities. Today, the healthcare system barely exists at all, with few healthcare workers and hospitals that are battlegrounds.

According to Save the Children, an independent non-profit humanitarian organization, in 2005, 122,000 Iraqi children died before they reached their fifth birthday. Since 1990, there has been a 150 percent increase in the mortality rate for Iraqi children. The under-5 mortality rate per one thousand live births in Iraq is 125; in Egypt it is just 33. Iraq’s record in children’s healthcare now ranks in the bottom three countries in the world.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4277

EDUCATION

"The Education system in Iraq, prior to 1991, was one of the best in the region, with over 100% Gross Enrolment Rate for primary schooling and high levels of literacy, both of men and women. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions, were of an international standard, staffed by high quality personnel". (UNESCO Fact Sheet, 28 March 2003)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505B.html

WATER SUPPLY

Nagy discovered six different Defense Department documents from 1991 that analyzed in detail Iraq's water treatment system. These documents show that U.S. military and intelligence agencies studied Iraq's water system very carefully. They assessed its vulnerabilities. They predicted the catastrophic health impacts of damaging or destroying it. And then they tracked the diseases spawned in the wake of sanctions and war. Together these documents form a blueprint for how sanctions could cripple Iraq's water delivery system--and a heartless assessment of the enormous human toll U.S. actions were taking.

The key document is titled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," dated January 22, 1991. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was a predominantly urban society with a relatively modern infrastructure which included electrical, transportation, water, and medical systems that covered most of the country. For example, 96% of Iraqis had access to clean drinking water (three years after the war the percentage dropped to 45%).

All these systems, however, were very dependent on selling oil to other countries, especially the U.S. and Europe, in exchange for needed imports, and "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" analyzes these weaknesses--and their broad and devastating consequences--in detail:

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1110-19/1119/iraq_water.htm

ELECTRICITY, SEWAGE ETC.

The worst civilian suffering, senior [American] officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed --- at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks.
...
Now nearly four months after the war's end, Iraq's electrical generation has reached only 20 to 25 percent of its prewar capacity of 9,000 to 9,500 megawatts. Pentagon analysts calculate that the country has roughly the generating capacity it had in 1920 --- before reliance on refrigeration and sewage treatment became widespread.
...
Pentagon officials declined two written requests for a review of the 28 electrical targets and explanations of their specific military relevance.

"People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'" said the planning officer. "Well, what were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions --- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."

http://www.scn.org/ccpi/infrastructure.html

As I've said before - if the US stopped building Megabases and this obscene embassy, and instead put those people to work rebuilding the infrastructure, perhaps it would be taken as a belated sign that they actually have started to give a damn about the Iraqi people.

 

[Aldebaran]

Comments on Peet not even worth the bandwith, let alone my time.

 

[Peet]

Let's get this straight, so you approve of the flight of capital out of the country and into the coffers of US corporations? Is this correct?

Depends which US corporations.

No reason why Iraq should not foot some of the bill for the reconstruction.

 

[nino_savatte]

Depends which US corporations.

No reason why Iraq should not foot some of the bill for the reconstruction.

It doesn't "depend" on the corporations; they're all there for one reason and one reason only: to profit at the expense of others.

Iraq didn't destroy its own infrastructure, the so-called coalition did that. They made the mess, they clean it up.