The US, The UN and Iraq

Walter, a tip of the hat to you, sir! What is the current status of the commune of Bologna? One of the best run areas in Italy still? I'm out of date on that one.

These statements are all contrary to the facts. The U.S. tolerated Iraq during her war with Iran. Our interest was to prevent either party from achieving a decisive victory. After the Stark incident we gave Iraq some ID procedures (which would help us know where they were) for their attack flights over the Gulf, with instructions that if they deviated at all we would shoot them down without warning. They complied.

The biological materials we sold to Iraq were ostensibly for agriculture research purposes, and in very small quantities. Until after 9/11 nearly anyone could buy these materials from most university labs with little difficulty. The United States never provided Iraq with weapons or military vehicles. Iraq's military equipment, aircraft, air to air & ground weapons, tanks & artillery, crew served and infantry weapons, as well as radars and communications equipment all come from France and Russia.

While the United States may have grudgingly cooperated on some matters with the Soviet Union we were never its ally after WWII.

Washington Post:A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

It has been suggested that the US implement the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to all the developing countries of the world instead of instigating a war with Iraq. Terrorism loses its reason for being when people have some hope of living with dignity and the most basic necessities.

Don't you think that there would be world wide support for this plan? Unfortunately, not one wealthy country has made any real effort to follow through with something this enlightened.

Of course, this plan would require a man (or woman) of the utmost integrity and strength of character. It is beyond the comprehension of most politicians to do the right thing, especially if it means backing off from a massive build up toward war with the inevitable result of appearing weak, at least at first.

Here is an excerpt from the article followed by a link. I hope you all will take the time to read the entire article.

"A 1998 report by the United Nations Development Programme estimated the annual cost to achieve universal access to a number of basic social services in all developing countries: $9 billion would provide water and sanitation for all; $12 billion would cover reproductive health for all women; $13 billion would give every person on Earth basic health and nutrition; and $6 billion would provide basic education for all.


These sums are substantial, but they are still only a fraction of the tens of billions of dollars we are already spending. And these social and health expenditures pale in comparison with what is being spent on the military by all nations - some $780 billion each year."

The link:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11766.

Wonderful Diane, I go with you 100%. However, only problem is if $ isn't for war, prisons or paying off countries/cohorts for either one of these, Bush doesn't want to contribute any money to the poor of the world. That, my friends, is the Bush legacy!!!!!!!!!

Diane and BillW, Yeah. That doesn't help the rich get richer, and GWBush has a blind side for helping the poor and needy. He talks a big game, but if one looks at the detail, there are too many loop-holes. Why can't they see the human benefits of spending under $50 billion for humanity vs over $100 billion for war that will only bring death and misery? c.i.

c.i. estimates run as high as $1.5 trillion (when it's over - that includes reestablishing that, that is already there).

Yup, the Soviets only served as allies briefly. After WWII they served us even better as enemies. Well, not "us", exactly, but our infamous military-industrial complex. If the weaponry we sold to Iraq was for agricultural purposes, why was Rumsfeld in on the deal?

Diane, I don't think the current admin is likely to be swayed by reason and decency. Lewis Lapham, in the March Harper's, lists the Republican agenda and its why's and wherefore's. (In the same issues, Jonathan Schell on war...) BillW -- you hit the nail on the head. Legacy is a word which pursues poor W.!

Let me add plastic sheeting and duct tape to that legacy!!!!!!


"They misunderestimate me!"

Diane,

These numbers defy belief.

$9 billion would not replace the water & sewage system in New York City. Clean water is an increasingly scarce commodity in the world, and sums far greater than that are being spent just to upgrade systems in this country. $9 billion wouldn't take care of deficient water systems in Mexico.

What do you mean by "reproductive health"? If it is condoms for all then $12 billion would more than do it. If you refer to prenatal care and abortions, this sum wouldn't take care of India or China for more than six months.

$13 billion for health care and nutrition for all those who don't now have enough!! Unbelievable. The overrun on Ted Kennedy's "big dig" road/rail project in Boston is more than $13 billion.

Expenditures for grade school; children in public schools in this country range from about $3500/year to about $8000/year per pupil. In the grossly underperforming schools of Washington DC the figure is about $7,200/year. At these rates your $6 billion wouldn't pay for one year of education for one million children. Even if the costs were reduced by a factor of one hundred, this sum wouldn't cover the cost of one year's schooling for destitute children in India alone.

Well, when the rubber meets the road, the United States will probably turn out to be the only rich nation on the planet, but I'm for it if those are real numbers. Nine billion for water and sanitation sounds awfully cheap, if they are using the American convention of a billion being 1,000,000,000. Some nations tack on another three zeros.

What's your opinion, c.i.? Do the numbers look plausible?

extra 000's mean nothing when it is tacked on to currency value. It's the real value in the world - and a buck goes mucho farther in impoverished countries. All have sanitation systems and none would be put to New York City standards. They would be upgraded and made far more sanitary - $9 billion does sound like enough, but it would do a lot more than $9 billion worth of bombs!

Obviously, BillW, you are more used to handling money than I. The difference between nine bil and nine tril is significant to this little rat.

Georgeob, the amount of money spent in this country is so out of touch with reality in developing countries that there can be no comparison.

For argument's sake, let's triple the amount needed to provide the most basic services to the world's developing countries, making the cost 40 billion instead of 20 billion.

I also don't want to deny the need of having a military and the associated costs for it to be effective. If the world's military would contribute 80 billion of its 780 billion, it would make up 2/3 of the increased cost of providing some hope to millions of people who might otherwise become terrorists.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

Maybe speaking out makes a difference.

I have been, at times over the last few months, markedly depressed, considering that a small group of individuals presently in power in the US would act on ideas and policies I thought foolish, destructive, and even criminal. Of course, they still might, and perhaps it is even likely they will.

But they have been slowed by all of the voices raised in opposition. Citizen activism. It is very cheering indeed.

I've been off doing a quick review (thank you, internet!) of John Foster Dulles and Dean Acheson and others associated with Cold War policies. I was inspired by the death yesterday of Walt Rostow, another Cold Warrior of a slightly younger generation. I confess that I grew up in that circle and saw those men in quite a different light as a kid. And it was precisely that memory, while reading Rostow's obit, which made me realize the extent to which the world has changed, even as so many politicians and particularly the hawks HAVEN'T changed. Our present day hawks are the heirs of those fusty, old, cold warriors-behind-a-desk.

But we have a world full of whole new generations of people who have grown up much better informed, much more aware of the values of independence and freedom, much more internationalist in belief, much more travelled, speaking many more languages, much less willing to declare that their nation is supreme among all others, much more apt to have studied in another country, much more likely to have friends in other countries -- etc. etc. We have a world in which international cooperation -- the political policy of peace -- makes much more sense. A world in which peace is the natural response to all disagreement and violence, not war. We are not so evolved -- yet -- that we can dispense with a police force, unfortunately. One of the legacies of WWII is the UN -- the international peace and justice force (if you will) encompassing the functions of maintaining (negotiating) peace, acting as a police force, and referring to a world court those cases which need to be adjudicated.

We are watching as the Bush administration destroys all of those safety nets, one after another. The administration will no longer recognize the World Court; it will only act with the UN if the UN acts on its behalf. It accepts no restraints and thus no peace.

I suggest that those of us who have grown up to knowing peace and cooperation refocus on the fact that we have the means to keep the peace in spite of a government which seems hellbent on creating war. Anyone who jumps in here and says, yes but we have people like Saddam and bin Laden around -- as though Saddam and bin Laden were anything other than standard international criminals and as though it would be wiser to wipe out thousands than inspect and rely on a standard internationl police intervention if necessary -- sounds to me like one of those old 1950's fogies who loved to throw American lives and ballistic missiles at anyone who crossed them. We have excessively strong political egos at work in our country. We need to bring them into line before we even think of dealing with the competing egos of Saddam and Usama bin Laden.

I believe the best thing we could do as Americans wanting peace is to stand up --visibly -- alongside the international community and for the UN. The massive international peace rallies today have shown that we have strong allies.

Tartarin

A very thoughtful and well written idealistic piece which on the surface sounds just like the liberal manifesto---a great philosophical answer for every ill of the world. Wipe the USA off the face of the earth and everyones problems would be solved.

Matter of fact I think we should just resign from this global quagmire. We could live quite nicely on what we have for a long long time. We might not be able to drive those millions of gas guzzling SUVs, or protect the world with our well trained military but we could sure line our borders and keep out all that trash that hates us but yet wants to come here and experience what was once the American dream before the ACLU and the whiners turned it into the American nightmare. We could close our ports, and shut down our international airlines---no more visa problems. Expel every foreign student who is here only to steal our technology.
One thing I can't comprehend is why do they keep pouring in since we no longer have the Amercan dream--the reason is simple--to steal what little we have left.

You talk about the US becoming subserivant to the UN and that the UN could solve all the problems of the world. You saw the UN on Friday---Divided!!!! How could that bunch of self serving parasites ever make a decision on anything? If you think I will ever let that bunch decide my fate and the fate of my family---think again. I will take to the streets with the rifle the liberals want to take from my hands. My first action would be to expel every parasite in the UN. I think I could could find several million who share my feelings. BTW---in those millions happens to be the finest military the world has every witnessed and they are just a little pissed at the whiners and dooms day pessimists.

Thought for the day---what if the USA shut its doors and closed its curtains? I think you would probably hear a roar as all the anti war posters fell to ground and then you might hear a mass of wailing and wringing of hands as they asked themselves--what about those monsters at the gates that the US has been keeping in their holes.

george, You must relate that money in terms of third world country economies where labor cost is much cheaper. Many people in third world countries live on US$1 per month. You cannot compare what something will cost in the US vs it's cost in third world countries. c.i.

ci - We need to get off this merry-go-round. You keep complaining that innocent people will die if we go to war, and I keep showing you that more innocent people are likely to die if Saddam stays in power. I understand that your goal is to safeguard innocent lives. My point is that an unthinking opposition to war may not be working towards the goal you intend.

Yes there are other bad guys out there. What is your point? That we should do nothing about any of them? Or if you think that we should do something, then why are you so reluctant to start now with Saddam? I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the whole world had laid down their weapons and let Hitler take over, the whole world would have been at peace.

Fortunately there are more people out there with their eyes open than shut; who realize an imperfect world sometimes requires imperfect solutions, and given that, those people would rather side with Bush than with Saddam.

If we do go to war in Iraq, I will guarantee you a few things:

1) Our victory will be quick and decisive.
2) Afterwards, the Iraqi people will enjoy a prosperity and freedom they have been denied for far too long.
3) Saddam Hussein and the thugs who work for him will never kill another human being.
4) Many of those other regimes of which you write will begin falling over themselves to do whatever they have to do to avoid being next on our hit parade.