John,
You are changing the rules and now it is when 50% of population is dependent on handouts. I guess I come clean then, being Swedish. Yes, when 50% of Iraqi population were dependent on handouts, it was something wrong, namely US foreign policies. This was a result of the "oil for food programme" and with US as both the major beneficiary of oil deliveries and with oversight of the programme. We already know how devastating it was for the population and the large costs in lives. Regarding your personal (?) version the US approval, it is wrong and I never heard it before and I read a lot about it. I have nothing to add to Keith excellent detailing of this situation. I sense that you are genuinely interested in the matters, so get rid of the blinds and start to look at it from a less propaganda ridden point of view. It is a lot of real facts out there, much from UN meetings and serious reports. Hakan At 06:33 19/06/2004, you wrote: > From John Woolsey: > > >-------------------- > >FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >DATE: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:38:34 -0400 > >SUBJECT: Re: [biofuel] Re: Cheney, Bush and Iraq 9/11 links > > > >Welfare state is relative. Are more than 50% of your citizens > >recieving welfare? If the answer is yes something is wrong. > > > >You bring up an interesting point about the US `approving` the > >invasion of Kuwait. My understanding from reading various articles > >was that there was a oil deposit that resided mostly on Iraqi soil > >that Kuwait was bleeding dry through a small portion of the patch > >was on their soil. Iraq asked for permission to move their border > >over that point not to take over Kuwait. The reports appear they got > >it from an inept American diplomat. Likely it did go further up than > >the diplomat since we are talking about a square kilometer or > >something here. This to me rates in the: if I can dig deep enough I > >can blame anyone for anything category for me. > > > >Which brings up the question why him? Why now? There where better > >choices if you wanted to do something positive in the world. There > >where better choices for dictators to remove. Theoretically if Iraq > >becomes a democracy this will be a success for the world. The US was > >hated long before Kuwait and they will be hated long after all is > >said and done. Once Bush is gone most of the animosity the US > >currently sees will go with him. The US are the big guys and in most > >people's books that makes responsible for everything that is wrong > >in the world. There where better candidates for turning more > >democratic with simple political pressure. Iran might have been one > >of them. I don't think that these democracies will lean positively > >towards the first world, but I don't really care if they do or not. > >I would always rather deal with the people than a dictator. These > >countries are definately better served by democracies to move > >forward. I am willing to be patient though because history is on my > >side. > > > > - bfn - JAW > > > > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:03:05 +0200 > > > > > > > >John, > > > > > >At 22:32 17/06/2004, you wrote: > > >>I have no intention of listing good things. The point has nothing to do > > >>with defending the US. The point is to see if you see the US as good and > > >>bad or just bad or just good. If you fit into the just bad or just good > > >>categories you should probably rethink your position. > > > > > >If you have no intention to list any good foreign policies, why did you > > >bring it up. In asking others to do so, you indirectly told us that you > > >could do so. I do have accept that you cannot or as you say will not. > If it > > >would be easy and obvious, I would not ask you, but you asked me and I > have > > >difficulties. > > > > > > > > >>For example Saddam Hussein > > >>Good: Early in his leadership he nationalised the oil industry and > greatly > > >>increased the standard of living in his country by building > infrastructure. > > >>Bad: Started a war with Iran. > > > > > >A proxy war and heavily supported by US foreign policy. The famous gassing > > >of his own people with WMDs, which were with direct deliveries from US. It > > >has not been clearly established that it was not a result from fighting > > >with Iranian in the same area and the same time. > > > > > >>Turned the entire country into a welfare state because it was easier to > > >>maintain control that way. > > > > > >So now I am in trouble, being a Swede and lived most of my life in welfare > > >states like Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, UK, France etc. It has never > > >occurred to me that a welfare state is necessary something evil and > that we > > >take the risk of US occupation. Regarding his motives, they could > > >originally have been benign, who knows? > > > > > >>Undertook a quest to rebuild the auttoman empire which resulted in the > > >>invasion of Kuwait and the first gulf war which effectively ended his > > >>power by destroying the vast majority of his military. > > > > > >I think that you must study some more about the Ottoman empire (if we mean > > >the same), the first logical step would have been to occupy Turkey, but > > >maybe it is some indications that he might had thoughts in that direction. > > >Turkey is however a NATO member and nearly an impossible task, I doubt > that > > >he ever had thoughts in that direction. Iraq have always had the opinion > > >that Kuweit was a renegade province. Do not forget that he asked US for > > >permission first and got an answer from an incompetent US ambassador, that > > >US did not care if he did it. With a strong initial rejection from US, we > > >might not be in the situation of today. An other blatant sample of US > > >foreign policies. > > > > > >>Spent the next ten years smuggling oil to maintain his standard of > living. > > >>Didn't seem to care about his country any more. > > > > > >That I think can be better described as FFA ventures. > > > > > >>Compared to other dictators in the area probably not the best or the > worst. > > >> > > >>I am sure if I did more research I could find more positive about him > > >>especially at the begining of his career. When you start comparing him to > > >>leaders in the area he looks much better. > > > > > >It is very hard to tell, how it would have looked without the Iran war, > > >which was very much a result of US foreign policies. War corrupts and > > >directly result in hard measures to keep the discipline of military and > > >population. Speculation are not going to change history and the Iraq > > >hardships under the Saddam regime. He would probably been much better off, > > >without the Iranian war and US foreign policies, but we will never know. > > > > > > > > >>As for US Corporations I have no illusion, the only thing they care about > > >>is money. However I don't think the corporations of any other country are > > >>any different. Traditionally modern nations have just been better at > it. I > > >>think this is one of the main things missed by many governments. Taxing > > >>corps to death kills them and trusting them with the chickens is just as > > >>bad or worse. > > > > > >US foreign policies have always accommodated US corporate interests > abroad. > > > > > >Hakan > > > > > > > > >> - bfn - JAW > > >> > > >>---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > > >>From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > >>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:02:28 +0200 > > >> > > >> > > > >> >John, > > >> > > > >> >I think that your thought line in this is a little bit > confused. It does > > >> >not work this way. If you save somebody from drowning, you do not > get any > > >> >license to get out and kill somebody else. You are not likely > >to be facing > > >> >a court if you save somebody, but hopefully will do so if you kill > > >> >somebody. It is good that US actions and policies comes under > >scrutiny, it > > >> >should do so and it is even more important if you think about > >the impact US > > >> >policies have. The good things, does not give US any right to break > > >> >international law and moral consensus. . > > >> > > > >> >US policy and help is not outstanding, compared with what other nations > > >> >contribute. When most European countries give around 0.8% of GDP to > > >> >development assistance, US give 0.2% and in this is some > >military support. > > >> >When most European countries give it without purchase rules > attached, US > > >> >demands to be preferred supplier. If you the look at the > >returns from this > > >> >and related business, it can really be questioned if US actually give > > >> >anything and it can even be claimed that it is a net > >revenue/profit earner > > >> >for US. > > >> > > > >> >So now, give me your list of things that turned out well, as a direct > > >> >result of US official foreign policy. It has always supported US > business > > >> >interests to a very large degree and it is many success stories > >there. Only > > >> >look at the dominant position of US multinationals, that always > >follow any > > >> >US intervention, even WWII. With preferred treatment of the US > > >> >multinationals, US have in many cases been given a free ride to > >pollute and > > >> >risk foreign workers, in a way that is completely unacceptable > >on US soil. > > >> > > > >> >I can think about many US NGOs and non government initiatives, > >who do a lot > > >> >of good things. This is however on initiative of good > >Americans, not a part > > >> >of US foreign policies. I supposed that you did not include this in > your > > >> >question, since you asked for US policies. > > >> > > > >> >I can also think about resistance to Soviet style of communism, but > even > > >> >this has been used to cover up support too many quite ugly > dictatorships > > >> >and other things. > > >> > > > >> >So let us hear you perception of the good things. > > >> > > > >> >Hakan > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >At 20:12 17/06/2004, you wrote: > > >> >>Try this test: > > >> >>Sit down and try to find something positive about US foreign > >policy. I am > > >> >>not going to mention anything specific at the moment I can > >think of a few > > >> >>things. Things that generally turned out well. Don't search the > net find > > >> >>them in your head. > > >> >> > > >> >>Can't think of any can you? Now that we have proven your bais > let's talk > > >> >>about it. You have also not defined anything as grey. According to > your > > >> >>view the US was not only always wrong but they where > >completely wrong. You > > >> >>have defined every policy that a nation has undergone in the > >last hundred > > >> >>years as evil. Wow that is pretty impressive. I have a hard time doing > > >> >>that for even the worst tyrants. > > >> >> > > >> >>Try to take a balanced view of things and see both the good and > the evil > > >> >>in governments but more importantly try to understand why they do what > > >> >>they do and you will have a much better chance of effecting their > policy > > >> >>by an appropriate response. Learn to hate and you will be willing to > > >> >>support terrible things simply to fuel your hate. Is that the > world you > > >> >>really want? > > >> >> > > >> >> - bfn - JAW ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
