Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Yet another ‘core’ promise
by John Richardson
Australia’s Donald Rumsfeld, Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, offered a pious rebuttal of Kim Beazley’s call last week for the withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq (No Question Of Walking Away, Herald, January 12).
Next to the UK, Australia was the most vocal supporter for the illegal war of aggression mounted by the US against Iraq, with Howard, Hill and Downer at times seeking to outdo each other with their hyperbole in support of the draft-dodging George Bush’s middle-east military adventure (two days before Hill’s piece was published, Lord Downer unpacked another of his shrill performances by declaring that pulling out of Iraq would be 'catastrophic').
Of course, the US-lead war and occupation of Iraq have also come to symbolize the all-consuming evil ‘war on terror’; the sole platform upon which the Howard government rests. Howard’s early discovery and astute use of the fear meme has been central to his ‘leadership’ success and to maintaining his government’s electoral advantage for years.
But, as everyone, except politicians, seems to understand, the wheel of fortune has a bad habit of turning, often severing the necks of those who were imprudent enough to stick them out the furthest.
And the wheel of fortune is turning...
With ‘Bomber’ Beazley finally seeming to be ready to declare Labour’s own ‘phoney war’ with the government over, the benign picture of the situation in Iraq painted by Hill is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain, whilst the difficulty confronted by the ‘coalition of the willing’ in trying to work out how to extract itself from the disastrous mess is matched only by scale of the problems it has created.
As the toll of dead and injured US military personnel continues to mount (2,200 dead and 16,000 wounded), so too does the financial cost of George Bush’s criminal adventure: officially US$232 billion and rising rapidly, with latest estimates suggesting that the ultimate long-term cost to US taxpayers will likely run to US$2 trillion - The Cost of The War.
In the face of these horrific numbers; the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians; the torture; the looting; the criminal lies and deceit, US public support for its ongoing involvement in Iraq has all but evaporated.
Of course, Bush has responded to this profound threat to his Presidency by, on the one hand, stubbornly insisting that the US ‘will stay the course’ in Iraq (hypocritically feigning a noble commitment to the country he has helped to all but destroy) whilst, on the other, preparing to wind-back the presence of US ground forces, whilst significantly increasing air operations - The New Iraq War Strategy.
As to the Bush administration’s boast that it would build a model of ‘freedom and democracy’ in Iraq, more than 80% of the US$18.2 billion originally allocated for Iraqi reconstruction has been expended. And the US administration has now decided that no further funds will be allocated, whilst blithely suggesting that future reconstruction will have to be funded by Iraq itself or through aid provided by other countries - US Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding.
Fat chance Lois.
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq produced 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, with oil sales of US$7 billion accounting for 60% of the country’s GDP and almost all its foreign exchange earnings.
During the 90’s, oil production declined markedly to around 2 million barrels a day, largely due to the inability of Hussein’s regime to maintain its oil field infrastructure in the face of the US inspired trade boycott.
Whilst Iraq’s GDP has risen significantly in recent years, oil production has actually declined even further to around 1.3 million barrels per day.
On top of its foreign debt of at least US$120 billion, Iraq still owes US$100 billion in compensation awarded against it after the 1st Gulf War, whilst a further claim from Iran of up to US$100 billion could yet emerge as a consequence of the Iraq / Iran War, dating back to the 1980’s.
Buried under debt, with any increase in oil revenues and foreign exchange earnings unlikely in the short to medium term, Iraq simply doesn’t have the capacity to fund its own reconstruction and will be condemned to the status of a 3rd world country, with its wealth misappropriated by its western liberators.
Iraq has 79 known oil wells, of which only 17 have ever been brought to production. It has the 3rd largest proven reserves in the world.
In the past few weeks, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, the great thief and liar who provided the US with so much of the false ‘intelligence’ it used to justify its illegal invasion, Ahmed Chalabi, was appointed Oil Minister.
Chalabi’s primary task will be to oversee the misappropriation of the 62 oil fields not yet brought to production to British and US oil companies, thereby ensuring their further enrichment at the expense of Iraq’s 26 million people.
In 1944, at the height of the 2nd World War, the British and US airforces dropped an average of 2,500 tons of bombs per day on Germany. During the 43 day Gulf War, the US dropped an average of 3,250 tons of bombs per day on Iraq.
Consistent with its refusal to account for Iraqi casualties, the ‘coalition of the willing’ also refuses to confirm the bomb tonnage dropped on Iraq during the 2003 invasion or since, however, given that bombing targets were deliberately not restricted to military installations or forces, the brutal reality of the impact of the coalition’s ‘shock and awe’ campaign can only be imagined.
The reality is that Iraq’s infrastructure, with the exception of its precious, US-guarded oil fields, has been systematically destroyed over the past 15 years.
Under the circumstances, Senator Hill’s take on the reconstruction of Iraq are surreal:
Australia has made a significant contribution to rebuilding Iraq and will continue to support this new democracy until it can assume responsibility for its own national security.
On December 30, a 20-strong specialist medical contingent returned after completing its mission at a coalition medical facility north of Baghdad. At the same time the air-traffic control contingent returned after completing its job at Balad air base. In August one of Australia's military training teams, which trained the new Iraqi army in logistics operations, completed its mission and came home.
The task group is also carrying out its own community reconstruction projects to improve the quality of life of people in the province.
These projects have included the building of medical facilities and community centres, installing powerlines and water irrigation pumps, waste water treatment and veterinary services. The Australian Defence Force will continue to work with the community to identify more projects and will use local labour to directly benefit the regional economy. This also is important work.
To put paid to Hill’s claims, it is only necessary to refer to the 2004 study undertaken by the United Nations Development Program (titled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004,"), which found that the people of Iraq enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East prior to 1991.
At that time, Iraq boasted a modern social infrastructure, with 1st class health-care and education systems; a modern sanitary infrastructure, with an extensive network of water purification and sewage treatment systems. In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education and per capita GDP.
In savage contrast, the UNDP study found that life in Iraq has decayed significantly since the 2003 invasion and occupation, with Iraq today ranked 127 on the Human Development Index, having experienced one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history.
Whilst Senator Hill might like us to think that life in Iraq today is all ‘peaches and cream’, the UNDP study reveals that Iraqi civilians, mostly children, have suffered from lack of health care and adequate nutrition, with 23% under the age of five suffer from chronic malnutrition, 12% suffer from general malnutrition and 8% suffer acute malnutrition.
The Iraqi minister of health claims that 100 percent of the hospitals in Iraq need rehabilitation, with current major problems including a lack of health personnel; a lack of medicines; non-functioning medical equipments and destroyed hospitals and health centres.
Add to these tragic facts the reality that only 54% of households have access to a ‘safe and stable’ supply of drinking water (only 20% in rural areas); whilst 98% of households are connected to the electrical grid, 78% experience severe ongoing disruptions to supply, such that 1/3 of households rely on generators, usually shared with neighbours and unemployment is running close to 70%.
Given the proclivity of the Howard government to claim criticisms of its Defence and Foreign policies are implicit criticisms of Australia’s Armed Forces, it is important to acknowledge the contribution being made by our 2,000 person team, even though it is miniscule against the size of the task and notwithstanding that it is only necessary because of the Howard government’s criminal deceit.
It would be equally unreasonable to focus criticism for Australia’s corrupt foreign policy solely on Senator Hill. The fact of the matter is that it is the entire Howard government that is guilty of making Australia a party to the ultimate war crime – a crime against peace.
Indeed, neither John Howard nor Alexander Downer have yet denied that their government deliberately involved Australia in the US-lead war of aggression, knowing, as the secret Downing Street Memo revealed, that its alleged justification for the war (that Iraq possessed WMDs) was a complete fabrication.
But Hill is the author of this piece and it is Hill who persists in mouthing the Howard government’s most craven lies to the Australian people:
It is at the request of the Iraqi Government and with the support of the United Nations Security Council.
If the multinational force withdraws prematurely and the terrorists win, that will provide a great boost to international terrorism. This is why an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, as suggested by Labor, is so dangerous.
Australia is, in fact, contributing to its own security by its presence in Iraq, and it is assisting the Iraqi people towards a stable and better future.
The truth is that the Howard government wilfully and dishonestly engineered Australia’s shameful participation in an illegal war of aggression against another foreign state: a breach of International Law.
The truth is that the so-called “request” by the Iraqi government for Australia to remain in Iraq comes from the illegitimate puppet government installed by the coalition of the willing, after it had deposed the legal government by force of arms.
The truth is, as the US 911 Commission Report itself acknowledged, there were never any ‘connections’ between terrorist organizations and Saddam Hussein’s government. The obscene carnage and destruction wrought on Iraq, coupled with its ongoing military occupation, has spawned a savage insurrection by the Iraqi people.
Surely it is only in the feeble and corrupt minds of Bush, Blair, Howard and their acolytes that the notion that people struggling for their freedom under military occupation and oppression are ‘terrorists’?
The truth is that the US, Great Britain and Australia have waged an illegal war of aggression against Iraq and in the process have rendered the country almost uninhabitable. Contrary to Hill’s claim, our participation in this evil enterprise has only contributed to a loss of security for our country and its citizens.
Senator Hill has been in Parliament for 25 years and has been Minister for Defence for the past four years.
Whilst his tenure in the Defence portfolio has been relatively short, it has been very eventful and it is arguable that he has been somewhat accident prone.
Apart from having to juggle the consequences of the government’s disastrous foreign policy blunder over Iraq, Hill has had to deal with a good many other Defence scandals.
These include the institutionalised victimisation of defence force personnel; the politicisation and subsequent deterioration of Australia’s defence intelligence capability; significant mismanagement of defence procurement contracts, including the Collins submarine, Seasprite helicopter, the FFG frigates etc; repercussions from the ‘children overboard’ affair, significant defence performance issues, including equipment failure and substandard service arrangements; commercial theft and dishonesty and questionnable defence procurement practices.
In addition, Hill has persisted with the government’s refusal to publicly air details of seven year-old allegations of torture and murder made against members of the ADF in East Timor; nor to provide information on the progress of what must be one of the longest running investigations in Australian history - In Search Of Yani Ndun | Webdiary.
Persistent rumours have it that Hill is considering retiring from Parliament and will presently advise John Howard of his intentions in that regard. Whilst Hill’s ambitions beyond Parliament have not been publicly canvassed, he is doubtless very keen to protect his reputation.
Whatever the future holds for Hill, the Defence portfolio is almost certain to prove to be a poison chalice for his successor and not just because of the position that the government has painted itself into over Iraq.
The Howard government has managed to survive for 10 years due to its singular determination to lie and deceive wherever and whenever it proved necessary or expedient to protect its political interests but, like Senator Hill, it is fast reaching its use-by-date.
It is a sad irony that both the people of Iraq and Australia will have been significantly diminished in the process.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Thanks, Graeme Hastwell
Graeme Hastwell, this thread appears to have run its course, but I did want to thank you for your valuable perspective here.
I was reminded recently of young Ali Ishmail Abbas, who at 12 lost both arms and all of his immediate family due to US bombing during the invasion. I guess it would be safe to say that Ali definitely would not have been included in any of the surveys, since his accidental and unwanted "celebrity" had taken him to London before the relevant studies were carried out.
Thus Ali and his family are sadly a more visible example of the kinds of appalling losses that weren't "captured" by ILCS and Roberts et al. It's no consolation that Ali's very public family catastrophe was, however, "captured" by the IBC tally.
Incidentally, IBC are asking for donations to carry on their work.
Post-invasion deaths in Iraq - Part 4
abbreviations and links
One ofthe biggest challenges in comparing reports on post-invasion mortality in Iraq (IBC, ILCS, Roberts et al) is to come to grips with the differences in the numbers they give. The IBC is a partial census of civilian deaths, and can be expected to produce a number that is too low, but is nevertheless valuable for being more or less incontrovertible. The ILCS and Roberts et al are surveys reporting estimates of combined civilian and combatant mortality, with the Roberts et al survey probably more fully estimating indirect mortality - see here. Both surveys under-estimate deaths from incidents in which all members of a household are killed.
James Squires has asked why the ILCS and Roberts et al figures differ so much - a good question, especially as both studies appear to be properly conducted. There is a 'lazy' answer - they don't differ because the confidence intervals have a substantial overlap. I'm going to put that matter to one side for now, and instead I'll discuss some technical difficulties first.
When thinking about these datasets, it is useful to consider the processes that generated the data, and how those processes might vary. Here the data are the number of people who died within pre- and post-invasion periods, and the processes are all the usual mortality-causing agents, plus the effects of armed conflict. In the pre-invasion period, it seems that most of the mortality came from familiar sources. So we would expect that mortality was concentrated among the very young and the elderly, and that deaths were distributed among households on a relatively uniform random basis after taking into account any differences in household age structure.
Pre-invasion deaths were relativly rare events: Roberts et al's respondents reported a total of only 46 deaths among 988 households in 14.6 months - less than 1 death per 20 households. So the probability of finding a household where death had occurred was quite low. This means that the baseline cluster mortality rates would have been based on scant data (lots of zeroes) and presumably had large confidence intervals around their means.
From a technical perspective, this is the classic problem of trying to sample a rare event. The inevitable result is a great many zeroes, some of which are 'true' zeroes reflecting an absence of the event, others of which are 'random' zeroes representing an undetected event that was missed by random sampling.
There were many more post-invasion deaths: Roberts et al's respondents reported a total of 142 deaths in 17.8 months. Everthing else being equal, this should mean that post-invasion mortality can be more precisely estimated. Unfortunately its not so simple, due to the number of ways that death can visit households in combat areas, and how those deaths are distributed between households. A single incident involving multiple deaths is much more likely to be sampled by a survey if those killed were from several households than if they all came from the same household. On the other hand, if there are a large enough number of incidents, each affecting a single household, then the likelihood of some of the affected households being sampled increases. Whether or not deaths are likely to be detected in a survey is affected by whether they happen in a public place or in the home, by the type of weaponry involved, and by the duration and intensity of armed conflict in the area.
The nature, duration and intensity of conflict has varied greatly across Iraq. Sampling would have been most reliable where military action had been prolonged, or where there had been intense aerial or artillery bombardment. Sampling would have been least likely to be reliable in areas where just a handful of houses were bombed. Ironically, the post-invasion mortality rate for Falluja (52 violent deaths) could be the most accurate estimate in Roberts et al.
Post-invasion deaths in Iraq - Part 3
Finishing my rebuttal of James Squires' (JS) objections to Roberts et al. Apologies to Andrew McRae and Mark Sargeant - I suspect I've forgotten to acknowledge you both somewhere along the way.
I won't bother reiterating JS's point that was very correctly refuted by Jacob A. Stam here and here but I will respond to a follow-up question/comment by JS.
JS (20 Jan 8:40pm) "...whilst doing their post war survey they ask about pre-war deaths not a particularly good way to do it..."
In fact the Roberts et al method is much preferable to the alternative of using data from a prior study. For a start, the extant pre-war data were several years old - the last census had been in 1997 (Analytical Report, p 41) and the most recent surveys of mortality rates were of a similar age (Roberts et al p 1857) There were also indications that child mortality had declined since the last surveys, although there was some question over this (Roberts et al p 1857). Perhaps more importantly, the pre- and post-war question approach ensures that the data were collected in the same way, and are thus directly comparable. The only proviso - as discussed by Roberts et al - is that the interviewees might not have a good recall of date of death, although this seems unlikely in a houshold setting over a period of less than 3 years.
JS (18 Jan 9:59 am) "As for the rest on the Lancet report, it didn’t include Falluja because the death rate would have been 300 thousand plus, and the authors knew this was absurd. So rather than looking at their sampling method, they ignored it. Doesn’t give you much confidence in the result."
This is interesting. JS interprets Roberts et al's exclusion of the Falluja cluster as an indication of serious problems with the work. I see it as evidence of careful work by a group of researchers who know their stuff. To me it shows that the data have been inspected properly (which doesn't always happen). It also shows that Roberts et al understood the effect that the Falluja cluster could have on their analyses. They then acted appropriately in making the results without the Falluja data their primary finding. Furthermore, their presention of both sets of results (with and without the Falluja cluster) allows readers to see just how different the Falluja data are, and signals that Falluja is an area of great concern.
Essentially there are no compelling methodological grounds for rejecting the Roberts et al result. Contrary to what can be found on other sites, no-one has 'proven' the Roberts et al study 'wrong'. Their study is at least as valid as the IBC or the ILCS. Technically speaking, it is noticably - and appropriately - more sophisticated. JS is not justified in rejecting Roberts et al out of hand. If he wishes to accept the ILCS results in preference to the Roberts et al results, that is his prerogative, but to be credible he needs to find a better justification than any he has provided to date.
Finally, my apologies to James Squires for making him the focus of all this.
Coming next: What to do in the face of divergent results?
Proper analysis like a good chocolate
Was that Haigh's or Swiss Glory?
Angela Ryan: thankyou for the generous words. I felt I needed a break after thinking about death and destruction all weekend, and I was wary of taxing WebDiarists' patience - I realise a lot of people enjoy the site for the cut and thrust of debate.
But since you asked so nicely, I'll get something together over the next day or two. I've been thinking some more about James Squires' comments on sample sizes - in one respect he was correct, albeit perhaps in not quite the sense that he was thinking of. This links into the great difficulty in trying to answer the questions that the Roberts et al. paper addresses, and why we need to consider and evaluate all the lines of evidence that are available to us.
Background
Your turn!
Sorry Graeme
Coverage in due course
Post-invasion deaths in Iraq - Part 2
Abbreviations:
I've collated and addressed some of the objections raised against the Roberts et al paper in Lancet. I'll use James Squire's (JS) comments as exemplars of the objections, as his claims were consistently specific and answerable. I disagree with most of them, but thank him for making rational debate feasible.
These statements are partially correct. Both studies have 3 main methodological components - their sampling regimes, their survey questions, and their data analyses. JS is correct insofar as both studies designed their sampling regimes using the same principles, and that they both collected data from interview, but from this point the two studies diverge substantially.JS (17 Jan 7:50 pm; 19 Jan 11:38 am) "there was the UN Report (using the same sampling procedure as the Lancet report, only a much larger sample)" and "the UN report uses the same methodology as the Lancet report"
ILCS asked households about deaths and missing persons over the preceeding 2 years, and included a question about war-related deaths (Questionairre p 48). Although ILCS provide scant detail on their data analysis methods, it appears that they tabulated the responses, weighted them with respect to the sampling design, and then calculated the confidence intervals.
Presumably as a result of their prior experience with other human disasters, Roberts et al chose to estimate the combined direct and indirect effects of the invasion on mortality. On the assumption that underlying mortality rates are reasonably constant, the Roberts et al approach has the advantage of estimating the effects of the invasion directly from the data, and without recourse to opinion as to the cause of any particular death. They did this by comparing the mortality rates for each cluster over the 14.6 months prior to the invasion with the mortality rates over the 17.8 months after the invasion. Pre- and post-invasion rates were both estimated with confidence intervals, and then weighted with respect to the sampling design. These calculations were validated through re-analysis using a different software package (p 1859).
The two studies differ in the methods used to estimate mortality, and it is not clear whether the ILCS 'war-related' deaths fully encompass the indirect effects on mortality estimated by Roberts et al. From a technical point of view, the data analyses appear to differ substantially.
The next point is that a larger sample will indeed reduce the uncertainty of the estimate, i.e. increase it's precision, but a larger study is not necessarily guaranteed to be more correct i.e. it may not produce an accurate estimate. A large study may provide a very precise measure of an inaccurate estimate if there are problems in its design or analysis.JS (18 Jan 9:59 am) "Statistics not your strong point I take it? A larger sample size reduces the chance of error.... the chance that your sample is off the mark will decrease as you add more people to your sample. In other words, the more people you ask, the more likely you are to get a representative sample."
There are several points to keep in mind here. The first is the use of the word error. In statistics, 'error' has historically been used to denote variability in the data that cannot be attributed to any of the factors in the study. It doesn't mean 'mistake' in the usual sense. Hence to refer to the uncertainty around any estimate as error can be confusing: it should be quantified as one of the recognised measures of uncertainty, such as a confidence interval or the standard error of the mean.
As for the issue of larger samples being more 'representative', this is only correct where there are groups within the population that systematically differ from each other. The most appropriate means of dealing with this form of variability is to identify potential groups and use a sampling design that is stratified or clustered on those groups. This is a much more efficient means of sampling than an increase in raw sample size. Note that both the ILCS and the Roberts et al study used clustered sampling designs to estimate the systematic differences in mortality rates between governates.
JS (18 Jan 9:59 am) "The other problem with the Lancet report is that the range it offers (roughly between 200,000-8,000 deaths with 95% accuracy), makes the report meaningless statistically."
There is a reason for this convention. In the context of these studies, the mean represents the best estimate of the parameter given the variability in the data. This is closely akin to (albeit not necessarily exactly the same as) the most likely value. Note that these studies are most likely reporting the means of non-gaussian distrbutions, rather than the medians.This is the most substantial criticism that can be levelled at Roberts et al, although JS overstates the case. Essentially Roberts et al concluded that if they ignored what was happening in Falluja, their data indicated the most likely number of deaths to be 98,000, but that there was a good deal of uncertainty around that. Taken in isolation, that estimate indicates the possibility that the death toll may have been a lot higher than many people had thought. The report was also important for highlighting the fact that aircraft and missiles - the so-called 'precision' weapons - killed a lot of Iraqis, many of whom were clearly not combatants (p 1863). Keep in mind too that this was the first alternative estimate to the IBC - which was known to be an underestimate - and that it was published some 6 months before the ILCS. Furthermore, the value of each of the studies (Roberts et al, IBC, ILCS, and the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count) increases when considered collectively: its not a matter of rejecting one in favour of another. They all provide evidence - more on this later I hope.
JS (18 Jan 9:59 am) "Choosing the median in a statistical sample is an act of plucking a figure out...(I know, in stats the median is chosen as it is half way)"
Coming soon: more James' claims
Thanks to Jacob A. Stam and Will Howard for maintaining a wider perspective on these issues. I'm persisting with my approach as I see two sets of misconceptions to be addressed, one statistical and the other regarding the consequences of the invasion for the citizens of Iraq. I'd be grateful if you could both continue to provide your insights.
Thanks Graeme and Will...
Thanks, Graeme Hastwell and Will Howard, for both your contributions on the question of Iraqi civilian losses. In particular, I look forward to Graeme's further technical observations regarding the relevant studies.
Will, the IBC and the Lancet (Roberts et al) study are almost certainly "both wrong", as is the UN's ILCS, and quite rightly our problem is to determine the ways in which they are "wrong". As important, if not more so, is the question of what we can learn from these studies and their wider context. One thing we can be confident of is that the uncertainty and consequent controversy surrounding this issue is a deliberate outcome of the CotW war policy.
Often overlooked is that, while both the ILCS and the Lancet study measure only crude mortality, the IBC data provide some detail as to the kinds of casualties that obtained. While as we know the data documents at least 25,000 civilian fatalities, it also documents over 42,000 wounded in two years since the invasion.
The IBC report released in July last year notes that “children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices, but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance”. Almost 10% of fatalities were children under 18. Further down we read that 73.5% of persons killed by unexploded ordnance were children. “Unexploded ordnance” includes such things as cluster bombs, which a number of NGOs pleaded with the invading forces before the invasion not to use under any circumstances where there were civilians.
I think already there are some dominant themes emerging that illuminate the way we, the "good guys", conduct "humanitarian" warfare.
Andrew- Actually the reason
Andrew, actually the reason for the short post is because I have a lot on this weekend, which you would know if you had read my post. The Guardian articles you linked to offer nothing new. Yes the electricity is lower (read my post again). But the newly elected government is now making more money from the oil supplies of which the money can be spent on rebuilding.
"you can't compare the Guardian with the lies, propaganda and invective of Fox News any more than you can the IBC tally with a survey"
Well first of all you can compare the two surveys. I noticed you haven't responded to my maths lesson I gave you on how. Why not? Don't understand it?
And why not compare Fox to the Guardian. They are both one sided representations of the "news". Have you attempted to find a positive article (not opinion piece, as even occasionally they have a guest contributor)?
So you have found the malnutrition was down, and electricity is not constant. The malnutrition is a shame, and I am sure something that is being worked on. Unemployment is better than under Saddam, inflation is better than under Saddam, the GDP has grown higher than under Saddam (notice that all three are key economic indicators). Also, genocide has dropped a shocking 100%, rapes by Uday 100%, etc. Sorry if I don't have the nostalgia for the previous regime you have.
Post-invasion deaths in Iraq - Part 1
Thankyou to James Squires for pointing to the Iraq Living Conditions Survey conducted by Fafo for the UN. I hope he reads it more fully, so that he will be less inclined to paint such a rosy picture of post-invasion Iraq. The primary document is the Analytical Report (6.3Mb). There is summary material in the Tabulation Report (4.4Mb), and the questionairres (2.2 and 0.8Mb) are also available.
Here I give a summary of what the three surveys do, and do not, report.
The Iraq Body Count (IBC) provides an ongoing tally of the civilian deaths caused by military action. It also includes civilian deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of military action, such as those due to the criminal activity that occurred following the breakdown of law and order after the invasion.
The IBC uses several sources: hospital and morgue data, press agencies and Iraqi journalists. For media reports to be counted, deaths have to be reported by at least two "recognised" media sources. Reports are scrutinised and cross-checked to avoid double-counting before being included. Clearly, reports are dependent on the dead being delivered to hospitals or morgues, on media access to scenes of civilian deaths, and on bodies being recognisable. The range of in the number of deaths that the IBC reports is largely due to uncertainty over the civilian status of some of those killed.
Due to the way these data were collected, it is likely that it considerably under-estimates deaths in the early days of the invasion when bombing and shelling were most intense. Civilian deaths in remote villages and isolated areas are also likely to be under-reported, as are deaths resulting from skirmishes in areas that journalists were not covering. I would expect that the extent of under-estimation has decreased over time, with the possible exception of deaths in Falluja.
The IBC is important because it provides a very reliable minimum figure. There can be almost no question that any of these deaths occurred due to military action. The question is, how much does the IBC underestimate the true figure?
The Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) was conducted by the Norwegian research foundation Fafo at the behest of the United Nations Development Program. Most of the data were collected in April and May 2004, while data from the governates of Erbil and Dahouk were collected in August 2004.
The survey collected detailed data on living conditions from 21,668 housholds across all governates in Iraq, using a two stage cluster sampling design (Analytical report p 11-12). In contrast to the IBC, the ILCS reports the combined civilian and military war-related deaths from the time of the invasion to the time of interview (Analytical report p54, questionairre p 48). It is not entirely clear how 'war-related' was defined, or whether this was left to the judgement of the interviewee. So the figure might include indirect deaths as per IBC, but may not include crime-related deaths. The ILCS acknowledges that its mortality question underestimates death, because households where all members died are not sampled (Analytical report p54). It is not clear whether deaths in the families of orphaned children would be sampled if the children were not being cared for by relatives.
The ILCS reports 24,000 deaths (95% confidence interval (CI) 18,000-29,000). This compares with an IBC figure of between 14,619 and 16,804 deaths from the beginning of 2003 to 7 December 2004 (Analytical report p54). Given that the IBC figure is known to be an underestimate, it is not surprising that the ILCS figure is higher. Even so, the ILCS figure under-estimates mortality for the reasons discussed above.
ILCS provides regrettably little detail on their method of obtaining this estimate, stating only that "the confidence interval was estimated using a linearisation technique (using SPSS Complex Samples, version 12)" (Analytical report p54). This SPSS module is used for analysing data from surveys with stratified, clustered or multi-stage sampling, but the report does not divulge what method was used to model these data, nor what statistical model was used.
The Roberts et al study (Lancet 2004; 364: 1857-64) compared mortality in Iraq during the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion with mortality in the following 17.8 months to estimate the excess deaths attributable to the invasion. In September 2004, they conducted a survey of 33 clusters of about 30 households each on births and deaths since January 2002. Their cluster sampling design is not dissimilar to that used by the ILCS. 988 households - comprising 7868 residents - in 11 of Iraq's 18 governates were visited, giving coverage across most of the country (see map on p 1859, Roberts et al). Five households refused to be interviews, and about 7% of households were absent. The Roberts et al survey, like the ILCS report, is likely to underestimate deaths in households where all members were killed.
Pre-invasion baseline mortality rates were calculated for each cluster, and compared with post-invasion mortality rates. Effectively, this means that the mortality figure that Roberts et al calculated is the exra mortality over and above any deaths attributable to the effects of the blockade, or to repression by the Hussein regime, or to more normal causes. It also means that it includes mortality among the former Iraqi military and among current opposition forces. Roberts et al provide considerably more detail on their statistical methodology (p 1859-60) than the ILCS does. The methods used to analyse the data appear to be appropriate for the sort of data such a survey is likely to generate.
More than two-thirds of all reported post-invasion deaths occurred in one cluster, Falluja. Although Roberts et al - and, apparantly, the ILCS - used methods that can accommodate considerable variability between clusters, they elected to exclude the Falluja data. This provided a lower estimate of 98,000 deaths (95% CI 8,000-194,000) than would have been obtained if the Falluja data had been included.
Much has been made of the broad confidence intervals in the Roberts et al study, so here I test whether it is consistent with the ILCS results. For data following the gaussian distribution, confidence intervals are proportional to the reciprocal of the square root of the sample size. To give an example, if one survey had a confidence interval of, say, 10 units, four times as many samples would be required to reduce the confidence interval by a half to 5 units, everything else being equal. While mortality data, being count data, will follow a poisson or negative binomial distribution (for which calculating confidence intervals is more complex) the reciprocal of the square root will provide a useful first approximation. The ILCS had about 22 times as many samples as the Roberts et al study. Hence the ILCS confidence interval should be about a quarter to a fifth of the Roberts et al confidence interval, after accounting for the differences in the means. Doing so gives scaled confidence intervals of 0.46 for the ILCS and 1.9 for the Roberts et al study, showing that the underlying variability in the Roberts et al data is in line with that of the ILCS, given the sample sizes and the estimates of the means.
I note US military deaths in Iraq as another line of evidence for Iraqi mortality. 1062 US military personnel died as a result of service in Iraq to end of September 2004 (source Iraq Coalition Casualty Count). This figure includes death from illness, accident and possibly suicide, as well as from military action. It is highly probable - for two reasons - that deaths among the former Iraqi forces, and among current opposition forces, are much higher than this figure. First, the US can provide wounded soldiers a better level of medical care, increasing the survival rates of the wounded. Second, the US method of waging war from aircraft, helicopters and armoured vehicles, often using long-range weaponry and saturation bombing, exposes their service personnel to much lower levels of risk. The difference is very hard to quantify, but given the Gulf war experience may well be of an order of magnitude higher.
Coming soon: James' claims.
Try adding something we havent covered
Briefly...
As I am trying to keep this short, I will just summarise so far. No, I am not saying Iraq is a garden of Eden, although you seem to think it was beforehand. At this stage however, Iraq's economy is in better shape than it has been since 1990. Its foreign debt and ability to repay it are in better shape than at any stage under Saddam (at least post '87). the Iraqi people have their own elected government. It's because of these factors that in that survey I listed before the Iraqi's were overwhelmingly positive and hopeful for the future.
Andrew Mcrae, again, this is just a brief response, but congratulations on finding a negative view of the Iraq situation on the Guardian website. It must be difficult. Maybe I should provide a list of positive articles from Fox news for you? Or a challenge for you, find a positive article on the Iraq liberation from the Guardian.
on things getting better...
James Squire, hi – re your “genocide” remark.
See here.
Catch-up Thursday.
Cheers.
rejoinder ...
James Squire:
Hi James, just to keep the ball in your court, as I’ll be away until next Thursday & therefore unable to take the debate forward before then.
“First of all, the oil export figures you used. I am wondering why you are using the 3 million b/d figure? Peak production ever for Iraq was 3.5 million b/d a day”.
Yes, but production doesn't equate to export sales revenue.
With domestic consumption around 0.5 million barrels per day, export sales in 1990 are likely to have been on average 3 million barrels per day. I accept the 1.4 million barrels per day for 2005 over my number of 1.3 million barrels per day. But for the purposes of our argument, I’d be happy to accept your “peak” number of 3.5 million barrels per day, given it favours my argument as your calculations show.
“Also, I was looking for this item, but didn't mention as I couldn't find the evidence, but it appears Kuwait has forgiven 80% of the debt as well. Not to mention that a large part of the debt is odious debt. So in fact the debt has been decreased even further.”
Yes, that would seem to be good news, although it’s not clear what the US$ impact will be. (As an aside, it’s not commonly understood that the decision by many members of the Paris Club to forgive Iraq’s debts to it were conditional on the same decision being taken by non-Club members.)
Of the US$123 billion in non-Paris Club debt owed by Iraq, 4 Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia & Kuwait are owed US$40 billion.
Even if 80% of the entire Arab component of Iraq’s foreign debt was written-off, it would only amount to US$32 billion, thereby reducing the overall foreign debt figure to US$90 billion, but with the outstanding war reparations of US$50 billion, the likely claim of US$100 billion by Iran & the cost of the US invasion & occupation to go on top of that figure.
“I will just summarise so far. No, I am not saying Iraq is a garden of Eden, although you seem to think it was beforehand. At this stage however, Iraq's economy is in better shape than it has been since 1990. Its foreign debt and ability to repay it are in better shape than at any stage under Saddam (at least post '87). the Iraqi people have their own elected government. It's because of these factors that in that survey I listed before the Iraqi's were overwhelmingly positive and hopeful for the future.”
We will obviously continue to disagree on the overall situation, including Iraq’s ongoing capacity to service its debt obligations. As I said previously, with projected earnings from oil sales in 2006 at US$28 billion & an operating budget for the government of around US$20 billion, Iraq would have around US$8 billion to service its debt obligations, repair / maintain existing oil infrastructure & fund a reconstruction program – hardly an exciting prospect.
As to the alleged “optimism” of the Iraqi people, I find it ironic that US, British & Australian citizens are being told by their governments that they should place more weight on the their economic security & material well-being, even at the expense of their traditional democratic rights, whilst the opposite argument seems to apply to the people of Iraq.
And yes, I accept that moral outrage is wasted on those who are amoral.
I trust you had a good weekend & I’ll check in next Thursday to see if you’ve added anything further to the discussion.
At last it's come to this...
James, I didn't think you'd arrive this soon at the very briefest and poorest of all your efforts: "congratulations on finding a negative view of the Iraq situation on the Guardian website. It must be difficult. Maybe I should provide a list of positive articles from Fox news for you? Or a challenge for you, find a positive article on the Iraq liberation from the Guardian."
There's nothing left then, but to summarily dismiss the writer and the links completely because they're from the predictably anti-Iraq War Guardian; everything in there's bound to be negative, isn't it. I presume then, that you found no reason to read the links because you knew they'd disagree with your view. You speak of the Guardian and Fox as if they were merely from opposite ends of the spectrum. Even you would know that's not the case; you can't compare the Guardian with the lies, propaganda and invective of Fox News any more than you can the IBC tally with a survey. Anyway, your position has shrivelled away to next to nothing, by the look of it. That last comment suggests someone peering down a telescope from the wrong end.
The dangers of blog hysteria
I don't like where this forum is heading.
Here's an article titled "When blog hysteria does real harm."
It matches my views on the subject.
[Extract]
Re: dangers of blog hysteria
Gareth Eastwood, thanks for that Boston Globe link. I second those views. I would add that mainstream journalism has standards to which it all-too-often does not adhere. We in the Webdiary community have an explicit guideline in the form of the Media Alliance Code of Ethics, and those should form, in my opinion, a minimum standard of conduct.
There is another point that I think should be mentioned: a journalistic standard which I expect of the mainstream media is the clear separation of reporting and commentary. This standard is too often violated (in my opinion), with opinion creeping into reportage in subtle and overt ways. Media outlets should confine opinion to the Op-Ed pages, and reporters who write commentary lose their credibility (i.e. objectivity) on those issues on which they choose to opine. Yet I expect factual accuracy even from commentators, to the extent they present points of fact in support of their arguments.
Here on Planet Webdiary, the boundaries between "reporting" and "opinion" are far more blurry, as the two are so interwined. One problem we often encounter in the debate occurring on Webdiary is agreement upon factual matters. The Globe stories point that "bloggers and their readers are sometimes too willing to accept trafficking in rumor and speculation as a process from which the truth will ultimately emerge through the self-correcting power of debate" is right on target and directly pertinent to Webdiary. We too often forget the possibility that as we heatedly debate two seeming alternative versions of a story, both may be wrong. It's a bit like trying to debate techniques of celestial navigation while arguing whether the earth is shaped like a cube or a pyramid, all the while assuming the truth must lie somewhere in-between.
Sometimes (again my opinion) debate can get stuck on factual points, and never move on to other aspects of the debate that may be as important. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq is an example. (I do not wish to diminish the importance of accounting for the civilian deaths, injuries, and damage we the COTW have done in invading and occupying Iraq, nor to dismiss the moral imperative of being honest of the "bad" we have done in pursuit of our goals, even if some of the consequences have been "good.") What if Iraq Body Count and the Lancet study are both wrong? What if the real number of civilian deaths is higher than the 100,000 figure commonly quoted as an upper limit in the Lancet study (not outside the realm of possibility given the size of Iraq and the scale and complexity of the conflict)? The point can be made of any other metrics of how much "better" or "worse" things have gotten in Iraq since the ouster of Saddam. (As an "end-member" case, think of WWII. Probably millions of civilians were killed, and the German and Japanese economies absolutely devastated in that conflict. Yet, setting aside debate over specific incidents such as Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the Allied war against the Axis powers is widely regarded as having been "worth it.") In Iraq we're still left with the moral dilemma "was it worth it?" Was the cost in Iraqi (however many) and COTW lives, the damage to Iraqi infrastructure, "worth" getting rid of a brutal murdering despot? Other collateral damage includes the credibility of our own governments within the COTW societies and worldwide, as "freeing the Iraqis from a dictator" was not the case made to us for that war (the main argument was the as-yet undiscovered WMD). So our leaders never gave us the opportunity to consider that moral equation. More on this topic later. Gotta go eat breakfast.
Sid Walker...
Sid Walker, okay say I except what you are saying is correct. Can you now give me an idea who is behind it all and why? It all seems rather over complicated to me.
For example you have given me this answer on Nick Berg: "Regarding Nick Berg's execution, Jay, methinks you are being deliberately obtuse. Can you really not appreciate the potential strategic advantage of framing Arabs/Moslems for crimes they don't commit? Really?
Okay so the advantage is to get people to hate Muslims and get them on side with Israel? If this was the case I don't know that it was all that well thought out. Firstly the execution I remember most was the poor Korean aid worker screaming in horror. Secondly I remember it was because of these exact images why the Phillipines agreed to leave the country when one of their own was kidnaped embrassing the COTW and handing Muslims extremists a victory. Ditto the Spanish bombings.
Far out if Muslim extremists keep getting this lucky their home free!
Add to that by far the most unsettling images I have ever seen relating to terrorism was that of Beslen. A crime committed against neither Jews or Americans. Was this staged as well by a nation who can hardly be called the greatest of friends to either Jews or Americans. Perhaps it was the work of Jewish American spies? If it was it has not made Russia change its tune.
So who was really behind the World trade center destruction and why? Answer these simple questions and I may continue with you.
Answers
"So who was really behind the World trade center destruction and why? Answer these simple questions and I may continue with you," writes Jay White.
Mr White, you offer me the chance of "continuing with you" as though it is the opportunity of a lifetime. Do you have a grossly inflated ego? I really don't care to debate with you for the sake of it. I do choose to rebut some of your most egregious nonsense and raise topics I consider to be important and too little discussed, when I have time
Who was behind 9-11? Good question.
As in the case of the assassination of JFK, the organisers must have had the motive, the opportunity and (according to my take on events, which is that the official version of what happened on 9-11 is clearly and obviously incorrect in fundamental ways) the means to cover up their crime and deflect attention in a false direction.
The latter is a good clue to help get started.
Who announced the identity of the "19 Arab hijackers" and the alleged mastermind (Usama bin Laden) before dust had settled on the WTC site? We might want to look at the role of the mass media (there were only a few main sources of info on that fateful day)...
Who must have given the go-ahead for the buildings to be rigged with explosives? I suggest the owner of the buildings - and his colleagues and backers - is rather more likely to have been involved in that than cave-swelling fugitives in Afghanistan.
There are many minor avenues of inquiry that could be followed up. Popular Mechanics employs an unknown journalist to debunk "9-11 conspiracy theories". It turns out the author is a close relative of FEMA chief Michael Chertoff. Put that down as another suspicious lead to follow up.
It's not hard to uncover such an obvious conspiracy and bring those responsible to justice.
But to do so, a society must muster the necessary political will. That is "under construction".
Hamish: Ok, I let this 9/11 'false-flag' debate happen, quite intentionally. It is, as has been noted before, going against the policy Margo had laid down (and I agreed with), but frankly I wanted to see what might emerge. Already I can see this taking over a thread, being very emotive, and not really getting anywhere in terms of convincing anyone of anything, which is what I had feared. Here's the deal: I will post NO MORE on this topic at this stage, but invite you, Sid, to write an article clearly outlining your ideas on the matter, and the debate can continue, among all those interested, on that thread only. I think this is a reasonable compromise and ask everyone to respect it.
Offer accepted
Thanks Hamish.
I'll need a little time to prepare an article about this, but would be delighted to offer one for publication in Webdiary. I'll liaise with you further by direct email.
Hamish: righto.
offer to help.
Sid, I am by no means convinced by the arguments that were put forward by those that do not accept the 'official' 911 story. However, I am equally troubled by the fact that certain scientific and 'common sense' questions were never addressed.
Though my science is rusty, I have the enormous good luck to be neighbour and friend to a Yorkshireman whose genius in the area of scientific and general knowledge is beyond questioning.
To put it bluntly, if said Yorkshireman was my 'phone a friend', I'd be a millionaire. In fact, I've taken said Yorkshireman on as a replacement for my dad who's enjoying his retirement on the other side of the world after 40 years as a fibre optic engineer in the aerospace industry.
My point is to offer you my help in vetting some of the scientific stuff that has been posted elsewhere.
I have, over the years, come to fallacious scientific conclusions myself and my 'Yorkshireman' has never failed to tell me when I was being a dimwit.
Although he'll groan inwards at the thought of this enterprise, I'm sure I can cajole him into looking over a bit of data here and there.
I give permission to Hamish to forward my email to you so that we can discuss this further.
I must warn you, however, that this is about finding the truth and not about winning an argument. I will make all data and opinions public, whether they support your case or not. :)
Righto From Me Too
Very S L O W maths lesson for you
Now, how does the Lancet do this? Well the way to do this is to look at the pre-war mortality rate compared to the post war mortality rate. Only problem is, as acknowledged by the Lancet report writers, pre war information is very hard to come by. How do they get around this?
Do they use studies that were already done (with vastly larger samples) For example(http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm ) ?
No, whilst doing their post war survey they ask about pre-war deaths 9 not a particularly good way to do it).
And what does this figure give them? Well let's look at the Lambert piece provided (supposedly in support of the Lancet), which compares the Lancet and the UN report. As he mentions, the pre war infant mortality rate in the lancet is 29 per 1000 births, whilst the UN report is 32. Not a big difference here?
Certainly doesn't sound like much, but importantly it is the lowest of all studies, and when you are trying to compare excess deaths, it is important to have accurate figures. Now, when it comes to post war figures, here is where the discrepancy really takes hold. The Lancet figure for post war infant mortality shows and increase to 57 per 1000, whilst the UN report (with its far, far bigger sample) only shows an increase to 35.
So what does this leave us with? In an area where we can easily compare the results of the two surveys we find one claiming a 51% increase in infant mortality and the other, with its greater sample size with an increase of only 8%.
So which one do you give credence to? Logic to me would say you give it to the one with the larger sample, but you guys don't for some reason?
Oh that's right, the last argument left for opposing the war is the great many people who died for it. After all, as my discussions with John Richardson have shown, almost every other facet of Iraqi life has been improving to levels better than under Saddam, much to your chagrin I am sure.
paying the piper ....
James Squire, it seems that we’ll soon be asked to pay the piper …
From today’s Asia Times:
No wonder “frisky freckles fishnet” doesn’t want to play Foreign Meanster anymore.
deluded or dishonest ?
James Squire: "Oh that's right, the last argument left for opposing the war is the great many people who died for it. After all, as my discussions with John Richardson have shown, almost every other facet of Iraqi life has been improving to levels better than under Saddam, much to your chagrin I am sure."
James, this comment can only mean that you're deluded or dishonest.
You might be interested in this news flash from the new "garden of eden" you believe we have helped create.
James condemned by own hand
Condemned by own hand indeed, with this derisive and sarcastic comment: "Oh that's right, the last argument left for opposing the war is the great many people who died for it. After all, as my discussions with John Richardson have shown, almost every other facet of Iraqi life has been improving to levels better than under Saddam, much to your chagrin I am sure."
It's usually the FIRST reason for opposing war, James, but I do agree with the phrase 'the great many' when you mention the dead. And you're still pushing that discredited line about the 'larger sample'. Surely you've picked your last nit. At least you've stopped mentioning IBC and G W Bush.
You haven't shown that almost every facet of life has been improving at all. You're very fond of the UN ICLS survey - which, by the way, we have not been deriding with the same intensity as you the 'Lancet' one, in fact not at all - but nearly every media report of that survey when it came out included words like 'tragic' or 'dismal', the latter of which was coined by the UN itself.
Ghali Hassan in an article 6 months old, but also in the Washington Post (you'll find it in your favourite source, too, the BBC) quoted the findings of a Norwegian (presuming here that the Norwegians won't be dismissed because of the humanity of the captain of the Tampa) study on malnutrition among Iraqi children. Malnutrition nearly doubled after the invasion, whereas UNICEF reported a 'significant improvement (23%) in the nutritional status of children in Iraq' in the last two years before the invasion.
Yes, you'll find a blogger or two deriding UNICEF figures, but I haven't found any dismissing the Norwegian study with the usual level of sarcastic insouciance, if any. While there is some professional skepticism shown towards the figures and the likely causes of a decline in child nutrition, there seems little evidence that there has been any improvement and that Iraq is little better than Burundi in this area.
A google search on the phrase 'improved nutrition iraq' found only articles on the improved nutrition of pre-mating buffalo. That is only one area, but an important one for any war-torn nation.
On some of the other aspects of life in Iraq today, such as security, the economy, power supply etc. the Guardian alone has a number of very recent reports that make one wonder where you got those rose coloured glasses. Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq was published only two days ago. Then there's Why the lights are dimmed in iraq, Bush pulls the plug on Iraq reconstruction, and Iraq's future still going up in smoke.
Regarding the theft of billions that I mentioned in an earlier post, read this. Or just type into google 'theft billions dollars iraq' or 'largest theft in history' and suchlike for plenty of results. Another story that, like the Downing St memo, has been buried by the mainstream media.
The EU, with a vested interest in Iraqi recovery, being its second largest supplier after Turkey, does a manful job of 'talking up' some aspects of economic recovery, but still had this to say (pretty recently, because in the linked page the oil price of $60US per barrel is mentioned): "Despite having some of the world’s largest oil reserves and considerable gas reserves, ample water and a tradition of attention to health and education, Iraq is now a country where all development indicators are dismal. There is a perilous mixture of low indicators, heavy dependence on oil, and large numbers of unemployed youth. Years of conflict, mismanagement and sanctions have isolated the country from international experience in most areas of governance."
Power supply? Iraq needs $20 bln to end chronic electricity crisis. That's more than the total (largely wasted or lost) that Bush has said will be all that to come from the USA. Note this bit: "The United States earmarked 4.7 billion dollars for the neglected electricity sector in 2003, but much of the money has gone and there is little to show for it, Shlash said."
There is certainly no evidence that things have IMPROVED since Saddam's era. It is hard to see how things can have improved in a situation dominated by continuous violence and sabotage. Except, possibly, in Kurdistan, so beware averages that include that part of Iraq without acknowledgment. If you read the despatches you'll know that this was another very grim week in Iraq for people being blown up, dozens of police feared dead etc etc. It is also hard to imagine how factories and workshops can contribute to economic recovery when there is only about 6 hours of power at the most each day in Baghdad.
How humourous
How humourous.: "Oh that's right, the last argument left for opposing the war is the great many people who died for it. After all, as my discussions with John Richardson have shown, almost every other facet of Iraqi life has been improving to levels better than under Saddam, much to your chagrin I am sure."
Conclusions brought to you by the same believers of WMD. Every description of life prior to sanctions show Iraq to have been a good place to live for those not involved in power play. A decade of sanctions and then illegal invasion has left the place a mess. To claim otherwise is so bizarre one wonders about one's motives. At least escaping from reality is no challenge at bedtime.
Yes, James...
Yes, James, the Lancet study's infant mortality of 57/1000 is indeed an anomaly, which the authors have addressed on page 6 where they acknowledge "the potential for recall bias to create an apparent increase in infant mortality".
Note also that the 57/1000 is from data that includes the Fallujah cluster (page 4), however the authors have not cited a corresponding figure for the data excluding the Fallujah cluster (page 5). I don't know why this would be, perhaps merely an oversight given that the report is on excess mortality in general, not infant mortality.
It is also noted (page 1) with regard to the pre-invasion child mortality statistics, that "because only a third of all deaths happen in hospitals, these data might not accurately represent trends". Most likely such considerations, together with the chaos of war, would make post-invasion statistics also subject to error.
So you see, for every problem you can nitpick, the authors have already taken it into account, if you would only read the thing in good faith.
James: "Oh that's right, the last argument left for opposing the war is the great many people who died for it."
Correction, James: That's the first and last argument for opposing any war. But of course you are only about producing apologia post factum for a fait accompli, like a good little partisan ideologue.
The very best of weekends to you, and to all Webdiarists.
I suggest...
I suggest that every interested party read the laws of physics links supplied by Sid Walker making sure you pay special attention to their so called 9/11 investigating panel.
Funny that they only have one person claiming a degree in physics. On top of that not one single Civil Engineer amongst any of them? The great panel of building knowledge no doubt!
Sid Walker...
Sid Walker, this is directed at you although I understand it to be a pointless exercise. Perhaps however some doubters may find it of interest.
Sid: "But we know some things with a very high level of confidence... the laws of physics being an excellent example. Steel framed high-rise buildings - three in total - collapsed at near free fall velocities on 9-11, within their own footprint. That cannot happen through internal fire alone - controlled demolition is the only plausible hypothesis".
See World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects:
The reasons for the collapse are also supplied if any wishes to read. I dont know perhaps Sydney Uni is now a CIA spying agency?
Sid: "Was Nick Berg's execution staged?"
If it was I am not sure what it was meant to prove? I don't see what if any benefit the alleged stagers gained from it?
Miracles and Deception
Hi Jay. Thanks for sharing the link to the Tim Wilkinson website.
It's a curious kind of "scientific paper," written (according to the author) on the very day of the incident. A remarkably speedy analysis!
In his recently added addendum, the author comments that he sees no reason to update his original theory. One wonders why, contrary to normal scientific practice, he doesn't cite references for critics of the FEMA theory (his theory) - in the process of rebutting them.
One also wonders why he doesn't provide any explanation for the collapse of WTC Building 7 - indeed, he doesn't mention that it happened at all! That remarkable event alone requires explanation (when else have steel-framed tower blocks collapsed after minor fires?) Mr Wilkinson was super-quick to jump to conclusions - yet so slow to acknowledge legitimate criticism and additional unexplained data that he's... well, he just hasn't got round to it yet. Odd.
I'm surprised Jay didn't quote the infamous Popular Science article about 9-11 - or there again, perhaps not?
Perhaps Jay has been advised that too many folk have already wised up to the otherwise unknown author's family connections. :-)
Regarding Nick Berg's execution, Jay, methinks you are being deliberately obtuse. Can you really not appreciate the potential strategic advantage of framing Arabs/Moslems for crimes they don't commit? Really?
After all, it's been going on for a very long time.Thanks Jay
Jay White, thanks. It is quite funny how so many lies disguised as truths float about (plastic turkey anyone?). I don’t necessarily blame people for not knowing, as I think it is more a matter of under reporting.
Jacob, another point about the Lancet report if I may. In the conclusions of the report we have this written: ”We have shown that even in extremely difficult circumstances, the collection of valid data is possible, albeit with limited precision. In this case, the lack of precision does not hinder the clear identification of the major public-health problem in Iraq—violence.”
So according to the reports own writers, the only thing they are certain about is that there is violence in Iraq (presumably an increase).
Clever boy!
"So according to the report's own writers, the only thing they are certain about is that there is violence in Iraq..."
Well done, James Squires, you'll no doubt find that the document is somewhat peppered with caveats and notes as to the limitations of the findings. Thus you can cherrypick to your heart's content for material with which to sneeringly deride their findings.
No doubt, however, you'll pass over anything in the study from which can be drawn any wisdom or enlightenment with regard to the conduct of such military interventions. Probably I quoted in vain the concluding para (see my 18/1 9:31pm), but the key bit to try to get your perceptions around, James, is the following:
Or indeed any kind of tallies, since the tally of civilian casualties was completely and wantonly neglected by the CoTW forces. As was consideration of the indiscriminate and long-term effects of the types of weaponry deployed in densely populated areas during the invasion: large scale aerial bombardment, including cluster bombs, DU armaments, etc.
The moral and practical implications of all this are rather serious, in case some hadn't noticed.
For example, take the liberation of Burma from the murderous military dictatorship - which I'm sure will come soon with the help of agitation from true peace activists like James and Jay White, for there can be no fence sitting on this issue, you are either for the generals and their dictatorship, or you are against them, and for a free and democratic Burma.
Seeing as it is so self-evidently worth the lives of minimum 30,000 and maximum 100,000 Iraqis for the liberation of their country, then factoring in population differences (Iraq 26m, Burma 54m), we'd be looking at 'acceptable' Burmese civilian losses of minimum 62,000 and maximum 207,000.
That sound fair to you, James? Or would you perhaps want to review our approach to carrying out 'humanitarian' interventions?
'Suicide' Bomb Financed By Iran, Ordered By Syria Claims Israel!
Shaul Mofaz, the extreme right-wing Israeli Defence Minister, is really pushing his luck as he makes the most of the latest ‘suicide’ bombing in Tel Aviv yesterday. According to this Ha’aretz report not only is he accusing Iran of financing the operation, he’s accusing Damascus with ordering it.
Where have we heard this sort of stuff before?
Talk about warmongering crap! But I expect the right-wing Islamaphobic racists, never-question-anything and always-believe-what-you-are-told (even if it’s told to you by proven liars) dumb-and-gullible, will go along with it anyway.
Hamish: play the ball Damian. There was no need to belittle anyone's character to make your point.
'Suicide' Bomb Financed By Iran, Ordered By Syria Claims Israel!
Regarding the latest self-detonation attack in Tel Aviv (let me add this city is in Israel proper, not the Israeli-occupied West Bank, for the geographically challenged), Damian Lataan writes that Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has accused "Iran of financing the operation" and Syria of "ordering it."
Damian Lataan (yes I'm talking to you!), do you have some specific refutation of Mofaz's claim? Are you saying Mofaz is lying? Can you demonstrate that he is lying, or even mistaken?
Though I cannot speak to specific culpability in this particular incident, Islamic Jihad, an offshoot of Hamas, has claimed responsibility for that attack. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Iran and Syria sponsor Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah, as well as other groups explicitly dedicated to the elimination of Israel (I understand Hamas has recently softened its rhetoric regarding Israel's elimination - a welcome development if true).
The CFR website notes the "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the fundamentalist Palestinian Islamic Jihad have their headquarters in Damascus, and other terrorist groups, including the Islamist group Hamas and the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, maintain offices there."
Damian (or anyone else for that matter), do you have some substantive, factual rejoinder to what I have posted? Play the ball, now. See if you can get beyond accusing me of being a warmongering Zionist stooge, or whatever the invective-du-jour is at the moment. Or accusing me of dishonesty. Or accusing the CFR of being a lying neoconservative mouthpiece. Near as I can tell, the Council on Foreign Relations have no connections to any neoconservative organisations, nor any clear (again, as far as I can tell) right-wing or left-wing leanings. The CFR site has links to essays by "lefties" like Henry Siegman and "righties" like Max Boot.
Damian and The Laws of Physics
Tell me something Damian. Do you have to strap yourself to something solid and anchored to avoid taking off in to outer space?
OK I'll bite. What's your theory on who is behind this latest terrorist attack?
Don't tell me. Let me guess. The same people who were behind 9/11? And London? And Madrid? Do not know for sure but you are certain they are not Muslims?
Who could that possibly be? The Tooth Fairy?
Laws of Physics Rock!
No-one "knows it all", Geoff. A few folk on this Forum seem to think they do, but they are most likely deluded.
Was Nick Berg's execution staged? Damned if I know. I'll just have to keep an open mind on that. Were the London bombings an inside job? It seems more likely than not to me - although one can't, perhaps, say so with certainty given the extent of cover-up (another 'no inquiry' atrocity - sound familiar?)
But we know some things with a very high level of confidence... the laws of physics being an excellent example. Steel framed high-rise buildings - three in total - collapsed at near free fall velocities on 9-11, within their own footprint. That cannot happen through internal fire alone - controlled demolition is the only plausible hypothesis.
Now answer that point without resort to ad hominem abuse, diversion and / or sheer irrationality. You never, never do, because you never, ever can - isn't that right?
Why, oh why, is manic defense of the absurd and physically impossible so important to you and your ilk?A Problem With Transference Sid?
...ad hominen abuse, diversion and/or sheer irrationality.
...manic defense of the absurd and physically impossible...
Me? Where Sid?
By contrast have another look at what I was responding to. Better still I invite all to have a look at most of the stuff that you have been posting.
Please do not take this as abuse, Sid. It is an honest attempt to say what I believe. Once your mind has been gripped by these crank crackpot theories there is no reasoning with you. The theories are open-ended and as mutable as a cloud on a breezy day. Anything or anyone that contradict the theory are simply absorbed by the theory. That is why they are so resilient and widespread. Especially now with the internet. For instance I was going to refer you to the PS debunk of some of the 9/11 crock full of it theories but I can see you have already taken care of that to your satisfaction.
Once you are in the grip of this stuff you may as well have joined some mind-control cult. Who knows, perhaps that is part of the appeal of it. Certainly it is just as dangerous. There is no knowing where a particular theory might lead to. Anything in the world becomes possible. Am I a Mossad agent? Does Will Howard strike you as someone who knows more about 9/11 than he is letting on? What is he doing here anyway? Do we have your home and place of work bugged? Is there a plot to engulf and subvert WD? In fact has it already happened? Does Hamish strike you as someone who suddenly has something to hide? In fact where is Hamish anyway? Sure there is somebody posting in his name but has anybody actually seen him in the flesh lately?
I could go on and on. Afterall the theorists do.
There is in fact a danger to actually taking on some of these theories on their terms. It seldom works anyway for reasons we have seen. Indeed some of the theories are so offensive that it would be improper to debate the proponents as that would give them a status they do not deserve.
I find parody and ridicule often work best. Certainly it seems to really get up the noses of the theorists fairly effectively and that is satisfying in itself. I reserve the right to use these at any appropriate time.
A guess
Jacob A Stam, I suggest you read your own link before making comments, because if you did you would come across statements like this:” The number of Iraqis dying because of conflict or sanctions since the 1991 Gulf war is uncertain.1,2 Claims ranging from a denial of increased mortality3–7 to millions of excess deaths 8 have been made”
Or you might see this: “No surveys or census-based estimates of crude mortality have been undertaken in Iraq in more than a decade, and the last estimate of under-five mortality was from a UNICEF-sponsored demographic survey from 1999.11,12”
And then, if you looked at the Slate article mentioned, you would have seen this: “First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.”
In other words, the basis for the entire comparison is a guess, and a very low one at that (I wonder why?)
Again, s-l-o-w-l-y
James Squires, why are you padding your reply to me by quoting slabs of the document I linked to, as well as your favoured Kaplan piece, all of which has no bearing on the internal consistency of the Lancet study which compares surveyed mortality for periods before and after the invasion.
Again, s-l-o-w-l-y, for your benefit: The Lancet study compares surveyed mortality for periods before and after the invasion.
Whatever the limitations of the application of their findings, James, the comparison is a lot more substantial than "a guess".
Before you make comments yourself on this topic, please acquaint yourself with the material so that you can at least be taken seriously.
James Squires If you keep
James Squires if you keep debunking the so called peace activists myths at this rate so the only straws they will be clutching at is the truth. You know, their anti-American and democratic along with anti-capatilist leanings.
Peace activist is a insult to the word for any person who attempts to defend Saddam. There can be no fence sitting on this issue. You are either for him and his dictatorship along with his terrorist thugs. Or you are against him and for a free and democratic Iraq.
Osama Bin Laden Resurrected - Again!!
I think I mentioned a week or so ago that the time was not quite ready for the US to ‘kill off’ Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi just yet.
Now, apparently, bin Laden wants a truce – which, predictably the US has rejected – but did anyone notice how well ObL looked? Compare this photo of ObL taken in December 2001 with this grab from the latest video which appears in SMH. He must have had a kidney transplant. I wonder where he had that done. Either that or a really good hair dye job on the beard!
Conspiracy theories
Damian re this "Slowly but surely, many of those so-called "conspiracy theories" that the right-wing try so desperately hard to debunk are turning out not to be "theories" after all."
So the Kurds of Halabja weren't killed by chemical weapons after all?
Did we land on the moon?
Is Elvis still alive?
Conspiracy theories are advocated by both sides of the political spectrum. Some hallmarks of your average conspiracy theory (from Wikipedia):
1. Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
3. Require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources etc.
4. Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
5. At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
6. Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
7. When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
I see dead people (sorry couldnt resist)
Mark Sergeant, and Andrew Mcrae, AHHH, now I see what you are saying, that the Lancet is looking at EXCESS deaths. But this only means that the issue of the mortality rate as raised in the slate article becomes more important. As to compare excess deaths you need a base number to compare to, and as mentioned in that article, the Lancet used a mortality rate of 1.5, even though there is no data to support this rate and the comparisons should be a much higher rate (meaning the number of deaths should be far lower). Does anyone know why those chose a mortality rate of 1.5, when all the available data showed that even in peace time it was much higher?
Which leads me to the next point which is that the total number of deaths the Lancet recorded (when extrapolated to the entire population), as pointed out by Andrew , was about 33 thousand. And yet the report decided to go with the magic 100 thousand number. Why would they do this when the data it is based on (the mortality rate) is at best unverifiable?
Time to pack it in
You don't care to see dead people
James Squires, whatever your source is for your discussion of the Lancet's study, "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey", you should consign it to the bin.
You say "the Lancet used a mortality rate of 1.5".
1.5 of what, exactly, can you tell us that, James?
In fact, anyone who has any familiarity with the Lancet study can tell you that the post-invasion mortality, as measured by their survey, was compared against pre-invasion mortality as measured by their survey. See pages 4-5 of the pdf file available from the link.
The study is in fact quite internally consistent, and not a case of comparing apples and oranges, as you are doing with your Lancet/UN comparison, correctly identified by Mark Sergeant and Andrew Mcrae.
James, if you're really not interested in the lethal consequences of our foreign policy, you have only to say so, and we'll understand.
Even more Grist for the Mill
John Richardson: “My point on oil exports remains: they are lower than both pre-1991 and pre-2003 levels, meaning that Iraq’s foreign exchange earnings remain pitifully low, as invariably does its ability to service its crushing level of debt.”
You would, of course, be correct on the ablilty to pay or foreign revenue coming into the country, except for one minor / major difference. The price of a barrel of crude oil has doubled. If you look here you can see the real price for oil (adjusted for inflation). The price for most of the 90’s was hovering on average around the $25 dollar mark. Now days it is at $58 dollars. So whilst they are not pumping as much oil, they are actually making more money (in real terms). Good to see high oil prices benefiting someone!
“But the fact that Iraq owns the oil doesn’t preclude it from being misappropriated to the benefit of the British & US oil companies”
So when a brutal, unelected government signs contracts with French, Russian and Chinese oil companies, this is acceptable to you? As happened in the '90s? The difference now is that before the government can sign anything, they know they will have to answer at the ballot box. Not to mention the money from any deals signed will go to the Iraqi people (or do you consider palace building as for the Iraqi people?).
“As mentioned previously, Iraq had only ever developed 17 of its 79 known oil fields and was content to keep the remainder for future development and ultimately for the benefit of the Iraqi people”
Actually the reason these weren’t developed was because of the UN Sanctions. Saddam had no concept of “preserving them for the Iraqi people”, hence he was signing contracts with the aforementioned companies to develop more of the 79 fields.
“The key point with the 911 report is that provides no basis for the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to that terrorist attack: claims that were repeatedly and falsely used by the US as part of its justification for attacking Iraq.”
Can you point me in the direction where Bush made these claims? A link? From memory, and I could be wrong, most of that speculation came from the media.
“I’m not sure what your driving at by referring to Saddam Hussein as having skimmed US$21 billion off the top of the oil for food program?”
I was just making the point that the debt owed is not that great a deal to pay, when you consider that when restrained and supposedly not selling oil for profit, Saddam would, if he had chosen, still been able to pay the foreign debt off (or reduced it). As an after thought, he must be kicking himself now that the price of oil is so high, he would have doubled his income (and been the worlds richest man!).
“... agree that Iraq’s GDP & unemployment position has improved from since the 2003 invasion. And yes, the total foreign debt figure has also been reduced, albeit not through Iraq’s capacity to service it. And yes, you agree that Iraq’s oil exports are at a record low, as are her foreign exchange earnings & capacity to service her debt. “
The only thing I agree with is that the number of barrels a day is lower than it was during Saddam's time. As pointed out above, even though this is the case, the Iraqi government would still be making more money (foreign exchange earnings) than before. So to repeat, the economy is better off, the foreign debt has been reduced, and Iraq actually has an increased ability to service her foreign debt whilst not needing to pump as much oil. Sounds like a pretty good situation.
“... also maintain that the arrangements being made to deliver development rights for Iraq’s 62 undeveloped fields to US & British oil companies is nothing less than theft on a grand scale & is at the heart of the US decision to invade Iraq in the 1st place.”
Well first of all, no agreements are in place yet. Secondly you seem not to mind that Saddam had already made deals with ELF, Lukoil, SlavNet and Sinopec for the “preserved” fields. As for it being at the heart of the decision for the US to invade, do you have any evidence? Interestingly, Saddam suspended future negotiations with French oil companies in 2001 as he didn’t feel they were doing enough to get the sanctions lifted. So in essence you are partly correct. The Coalition wanted to enforce UN resolutions, but were blocked by 3 countries who had an interest in keeping Iraq under Saddam.
“And yes, like it or not, Saddam’s government was the legal and legitimate government of Iraq and the war waged by the US-lead coalition to depose his government was an illegal act under International Law.”
Sorry to recap, but you are saying a brutal tyrant who seized power through a coup has a legitimate government whilst the democratically elected government does not? Whether you like it or not, the elected government will be the legitimate one (and will be recognized by the rest of the world). As for it being an illegal act under international law, I don’t think you should be making statements of opinion as fact. How is the court case of Tony Blair going in the international court? After all, he did sign up for it, so surely he would be in court if this was the case? Or is this, as I suspect, the final and last argument you have?
You have said Iraq is worse of now than it was under Saddam, but in none of the instances you have cited is this the case, they are in fact better off. And yet you continue to say “it is profoundly hypocritical and dishonest to pretend that your actions are intended to help them, when clearly the opposite is true.” Its time to face some reality. Whilst you disagreed with war (for whatever reasons), Iraq is better off for it, and will continue to be so in the future.
a further riposte ....
James Squire:
Hello James.
“You would, of course, be correct on the ablilty to pay or foreign revenue coming into the country, except for one minor / major difference. The price of a barrel of crude oil has doubled. If you look here you can see the real price for oil (adjusted for inflation). The price for most of the 90’s was hovering on average around the $25 dollar mark. Now days it is at $58 dollars. So whilst they are not pumping as much oil, they are actually making more money (in real terms). Good to see high oil prices benefiting someone!”
Nonsense James – do the numbers.
3.0 million barrels a day @ US$25 per barrel (your number) = US$75 million a day
1.3 million barrels a day @ US$58 per barrel (your number) = US$75 million a day
Taking your US$58 per barrel & average daily production of 1.3 million barrels, 2005 oil revenues should have come out at US$27 billion however, average daily production was actually lower than that, meaning final revenue for 2005 was estimated at US$23 billion (see here http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/09/business/news/16_31_3912_8_05.txt).
With Iraq’s 2005 Operating Budget set at US$18 billion, that left US$5 billion coming into this year to address the impossible task of trying to fund the repair of existing oil infrastructure (critical if production is to be lifted), reconstruction programs, that pesky foreign debt of US$123 billion, the balance of war reparations due to Kuwait (say US$50 billion) & a potential claim from Iran (if the US hasn’t blown it up) of US$100 billion. And with oil production in 2006 forecast to be lower than 2005, the problem will be compounded.
Oh, & I forgot to mention that the US has always maintained that Iraq will have to pay for the cost of the invasion & occupation – within 5 years – thus far sitting at US$230 billion but recently projected to rise as high as US$2 trillion.
Yes James: a real cakewalk as the Americans say.
“So when a brutal, unelected government signs contracts with French, Russian and Chinese oil companies, this is acceptable to you? As happened in the '90s? The difference now is that before the government can sign anything, they know they will have to answer at the ballot box. Not to mention the money from any deals signed will go to the Iraqi people (or do you consider palace building as for the Iraqi people?).”
Talk about getting off the subject!! What does that have to do with whether or not Iraq’s oil assets can be misappropriated?
“Actually the reason these weren’t developed was because of the UN Sanctions. Saddam had no concept of “preserving them for the Iraqi people”, hence he was signing contracts with the aforementioned companies to develop more of the 79 fields.”
My understanding is that all oil field development under Saddam was controlled by the government, with all revenues accruing to the government. In turn, the Iraqi government hired foreign oil companies to perform specific contract services. This was obviously an arrangement which would not have made the western oil majors happy.
Could you please provide some evidence to support your claim?
“Can you point me in the direction where Bush made these claims? A link? From memory, and I could be wrong, most of that speculation came from the media.”
"The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
See here http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm
“I was just making the point that the debt owed is not that great a deal to pay, when you consider that when restrained and supposedly not selling oil for profit, Saddam would, if he had chosen, still been able to pay the foreign debt off (or reduced it). As an after thought, he must be kicking himself now that the price of oil is so high, he would have doubled his income (and been the worlds richest man!).”
Interesting but hardly relevant to the debate: we were discussing Iraq’s ability to service its foreign debt post-2003. As I’ve shown repeatedly, this is an impossible task.
“The only thing I agree with is that the number of barrels a day is lower than it was during Saddam's time. As pointed out above, even though this is the case, the Iraqi government would still be making more money (foreign exchange earnings) than before. So to repeat, the economy is better off, the foreign debt has been reduced, and Iraq actually has an increased ability to service her foreign debt whilst not needing to pump as much oil. Sounds like a pretty good situation.”
Strange that you won’t agree to things that you yourself have argued ie: Iraq’s GDP is higher now than in 1991 or 2003; Iraq’s unemployment level now has improved over 2003; Iraq’s foreign debt has been reduced by US$36.1 billion in 2005 to US$123 billion - & that I was agreeing to?
As to your claim that Iraq is “making more in foreign exchange earnings than before”, please refer to the correct figures I detailed above, which disprove that claim.
Sounds like a pretty sick situation actually.
“Well first of all, no agreements are in place yet. Secondly you seem not to mind that Saddam had already made deals with ELF, Lukoil, SlavNet and Sinopec for the “preserved” fields.”
I agree that no formal agreements are yet in place but there seems little doubt that the only way the new fields will be developed (a US/UK imperative) is for those agreements to be put in place. Iraq is hardly in a position to attempt such development itself.
Unless you can provide me with evidence that Saddam entered into any type of agreement with those oil companies, other than for the provision of contract services, I’ll stick with my position as outlined above.
“As for it being at the heart of the decision for the US to invade, do you have any evidence? Interestingly, Saddam suspended future negotiations with French oil companies in 2001 as he didn’t feel they were doing enough to get the sanctions lifted. So in essence you are partly correct. The Coalition wanted to enforce UN resolutions, but were blocked by 3 countries who had an interest in keeping Iraq under Saddam.”
No, I can’t provide you with irrefutable evidence & certainly any such evidence would be unlikely to have found its way into the public domain.
But my belief is based on a couple of very simple facts: the US, with 5% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of the world’s oil. With the advent of “peak oil”, I think that the US will do everything possible to secure direct control of the world’s remaining oil reserves.
There are also those who contend that the main justification was to head-off Iraq’s plan to establish a new oil trading scheme based on the euro & that this would have threatened the US$ (the same plan currently being pursued by Iran interestingly enough). See interesting discussion here http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
And I certainly don’t accept that the US motivation was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his alleged stocks of WMD or because of his alleged “terrorist links” or to spread freedom & democracy or because he “wasn’t a nice person” or had bad breath.
Given the US track record at toppling democratically elected governments, whilst installing / supporting dictatorial regimes around the world in support of their interests, why would their decision to invade Iraq be based on any other reason than its own geo-political interests?
“Sorry to recap, but you are saying a brutal tyrant who seized power through a coup has a legitimate government whilst the democratically elected government does not? Whether you like it or not, the elected government will be the legitimate one (and will be recognized by the rest of the world). As for it being an illegal act under international law, I don’t think you should be making statements of opinion as fact.”
As I suspect you are well aware, a government’s “legitimacy” is a function of a good many conditions, not the least of which are control over its geography, its diplomatic recognition by other states & membership of international organizations such as the UN.
Certainly Saddam Hussein’s regime was recognized as the legal government of Iraq & its standing was supported by the US & all the other major powers.
To get to a point where the new interim government was “elected”, it was necessary to depose Hussein’s regime via military force. Subsequently the new government has been recognized as the legal government of Iraq.
A crime against peace - see Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace
“How is the court case of Tony Blair going in the international court? After all, he did sign up for it, so surely he would be in court if this was the case? Or is this, as I suspect, the final and last argument you have?”
I don’t know but time will tell.
“You have said Iraq is worse of now than it was under Saddam, but in none of the instances you have cited is this the case, they are in fact better off.”
Only if you continue to deny the facts.
“And yet you continue to say “it is profoundly hypocritical and dishonest to pretend that your actions are intended to help them, when clearly the opposite is true.” Its time to face some reality. Whilst you disagreed with war (for whatever reasons), Iraq is better off for it, and will continue to be so in the future.”
My article dealt with the circumstances of the Iraq war and its aftermath, in the context of our involvement. It reflects my viewpoint and in spite of your best efforts, the facts and arguments I presented support that viewpoint.
In turn, you or anyone-else are entitled to disagree, provided that, in the interests of informed and fair debate, you are prepared to table facts in support of your point of view.
As to the future, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see?
Meantime, enjoy your weekend.