Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski

[presidebt]

@dropzone

From the LA Weekly link:And that is why I don’t automatically dismiss the beliefs of conservatives and libertarians, though I don’t consider myself one.

I think this point needed to be highlight, mostly because I agree with it. One of the things that drives me crazy about some political people is the inclination to complete and utter dismissal of opposing points of view, and the inclination to use abusive or disrespectful language. (For instance, it’s SENATOR Clinton, not Hillary or Hitlery; and it’s PRESIDENT Bush, not Georgie, or W, or Shrub, or Fuehrer. Clinton or Bush will do, too.) I see this happen on both liberal and conservative sides and I take pains to avoid it myself, which is not to say that I’m always successful, but for the most part, I am. I think it’s important to try to see things from another point of view, and I wish more people felt that way. Anyway, glad to see I’m not alone.

[elucidator]

I read this stuff, and the implications just didn’t sink in. Now that they have, I’m reminded of Lord Action’s remark: “Holy Fucking Shit!!”

Why isn’t this woman’s face all over every news channel? Have thier been any denials?

[dropzone]

@presidebt

…and it’s PRESIDENT Bush, not Georgie, or W, or Shrub, or Fuehrer. Clinton or Bush will do, too.)

Okay, while I try to follow that I am not always successful. I’ll start out with President Bush but it tends to go downhill from there.

But like Muhammed Ali will always be “The Champ” to me, Clinton will always be “Bill.”

BTW, if you like her in that interview check out eponymous’s link.

[presidebt]

@dropzone

Okay, while I try to follow that I am not always successful. I’ll start out with President Bush but it tends to go downhill from there.

Well, all I ask is that you try.

BTW, if you like her in that interview check out eponymous’s link.

Yeah, I’m slowly working through it. Interesting stuff, for sure. I’m pretty surprised that this thread hasn’t gotten more attention, what with all the political savvy that’s supposed to be afoot here in Great Debates. Seems like people would rather argue about stuff like Gay Marriage and Various and Sundry Religious Issues™, or just bashing each other and prosyltizing their political views. This information (from the OP) would seem like a useful tool for refuting so many of Bush’s policies and propoganda. And wonder of wonders, if the word actually got out, it might be a useful tool in the impending election…I’m starting to think people are happy with the status quo. Or maybe they’ve given up all hope, if I wanted to look at it more compassionately.

[hawthorne]

Well I am an economist. And that that link is just bollocks. It shows no understanding of the difference between stocks and flows. Or of the difference between the fixed exchange rates of the 70s and the floating exchange rates of now. (It’s nice to agree with ElvisL1ves and Scylla in the one day.)

This has been done before. You can see why I described this line of thinking as “incoherent” nearly a year ago here.

[ElvisL1ves]

@presidebt

the inclination to use abusive or disrespectful language. (For instance, it’s SENATOR Clinton, not Hillary or Hitlery; and it’s PRESIDENT Bush, not Georgie, or W, or Shrub, or Fuehrer. Clinton or Bush will do, too.

“Things have come to a hell of a pass
When a man can’t cudgel his own jackass.”
-Kin Hubbard

[presidebt]

@hawthorne

Well I am an economist. And that that link is just bollocks. It shows no understanding of the difference between stocks and flows. Or of the difference between the fixed exchange rates of the 70s and the floating exchange rates of now. (It’s nice to agree with ElvisL1ves and Scylla in the one day.)

This has been done before. You can see why I described this line of thinking as “incoherent” nearly a year ago here.

Thank you. I gave the thread and your post a cursory look, but I will read it more thoroughly this evening when I get home. I did notice that there was at least one refutation of your post, and I’d be interested to read closer what you think, as well as other takes on it, especially those supported by credential (as you have offered here) or evidence.

ElvisL1ves,

Please sir, do not misunderstand my intentions. You are perfectly free to say whatever you like, but the consequence will be diminished credibility in my eyes. That doesn’t mean I discount the opinions of those who use what I consider to be disrespectful, divisive language, but it does effect the weight of the argument. How can I take seriously, for instance, a liberal who complains about the meanness of conservatives (and I agree, there is that element in their fold) when said liberal is saying things like “Shrub…” Likewise, how can I take a conservative seriously who complains that their politicians get no respect (again, there may be some truth to that) when said conservative is saying things like “Hitlery…”

You might not care about losing credibility in my eyes, after all, we don’t know each other. I couldn’t fault you for that. I mention it only because this is my ethic-- because I want to be taken seriously and I want to contribute in meaningful ways to the conversation, rather than helping it dissolve into a tit-for-tat that gets us nowhere. (I realize this an idealist point of view)

Anyway, that’s quite a hijack I’ve started in my own thread. Sorry about that.

[ElvisL1ves]

I don’t know where you got all *that * from. Certainly the average Doper knows what’s exploring the facts and what’s simple bashing, even in his/her own statements (with some exceptions). Bashing is a long tradition (because it’s both fun and cathartic), as the 19th-century quote I gave you suggests, so if you want to make a stand against it, it’s going to be pretty frustrating for you. I’d suggest ignoring that if it bothers you, and engaging only the factual stuff.

[presidebt]

@ElvisL1ves

I’d suggest ignoring that if it bothers you, and engaging only the factual stuff.

Yeah, that’s basically what I’ve done in the fourteen months I’ve been here, which has meant I’ve ignored a lot. That doesn’t really bother me, and I have no idea why I expressed my mild and idealistic rant here yesterday. I guess I was in an odd mood. Sorry 'bout that.

[Aldebaran]

Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions.

True. Even to the extend on already planning/setting up/opening offices or exploring the possibilities to do that.

But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq.

Quite possible… but see below…

And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

You never knew with Saddam. Most probably if there would have been enough benefits, he would have sought a covered way to deal with that while playing the “anti” rethoric card in public…

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region… etc.

Very to the point. You wont see the US military bases dismantled even when that so called “transition of power” comedy ever happens. As Rumsfeld admitted himself again recently.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros.

Yes. I brought this up on an other US message board long before the actual invasion and was of coursed laughed at (and all the rest you can imagine) by the US’ers posting there.

The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro…

You can add to that that there was already talk withing certain OPEC circles for following the example and give the Euro some “try out”.

So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.

And for as far as I’m informed on the moment, no talk any more - even no very silent one - within the OPEC for trying out the Euro = threat for the dollar very effectively beaten in a coma.

Of course I would like to see the OPEC switching - even completely - to the Euro.
If not for all my other reasons, then in my amused imagination for the fun of watching how now “friendly” nations would be pictured as “axis of evil” by the Bush lunatics. It would be a feast to watch them in complete panic desperately struggle with the need to find a way to sell “invasion because of immediate threat” to the US public. And the world. (This is my personal little mental childplay in action .)
As Kimstu mentioned, LondonCalling made a very good and very clear post about this issue. I don’t remember where right now but maybe I can find it back.

Salaam. A

[Jojo]

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

As regards the statement that the sanctions were working, I think it depends from what angle you look at it. They were royally pissing off the muslim world and were probably THE biggest recruitment tool for al Qaida, second only to Israel.

She says the sanctions were going to be lifted soon. Were they? I’m not aware that there were any plans to lift the sanctions. Does it seem likely that they were about to ease the pressure on Saddam given that they had been bombing the country daily for 10 years and finally started a war to get rid of him?

Doesn’t seem likely to me that they were about to lift the sanctions any time soon.

So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.

Is this true? I can’t seem to find any confirmation.

[kushiel]

blinks I didn’t know Kwiatkowski was such a common last name…its my mother’s maiden name, and I see people not part of my family with it a lot.

Anyway, end of thread hijack.

[presidebt]

@Jojo

were probably THE biggest recruitment tool for al Qaida, second only to Israel.

Cite?

She says the sanctions were going to be lifted soon. Were they? I’m not aware that there were any plans to lift the sanctions.

I’m not sure on this either, but you might find answers at this site, which lists some U.N. Resolutions. I couldn’t find any reference to lifting of sanctions until March of 2003, which is after the war began. Still, if memory serves, Russia, France and Germany were lobbying the U.N. to lift sanctions as early as 2000. You might have to google for earlier resolutions.

Is this true? I can’t seem to find any confirmation.

I don’t know about an Executive order, but the point stands about the connection between Euro conversion and oil. Hussein did, in fact, convert trading oil to the euro in 2000. Cite. Apparently, it is still being talked about. Cite.

Given how the current administration continues to insist on ruining our reputation world-wide, I wouldn’t be surprised if the push for this becomes stringer and stronger. The world may very well decide that if Americans can’t bring themselves to address the issue in this election, they will simply negate our economic status, which may be an easy enough thing to do. I may get flamed for this, but I am not convinved that would be a bad thing. I’m on the fence, quite frankly, stuck between personal preservation and political ideology. I don’t like the idea of a sole super power, I will say that much, if only because a fall seems inevitable, and I would hate to see us treated as we’ve treated others.

[Jojo]

Jojo: were probably THE biggest recruitment tool for al Qaida, second only to Israel.

presidebt: Cite?

Well, unfortunately, al Qaida don’t release statistics of their personnel so a direct cite is not possible. But OBL’s fatwa against the US cited the sanctions as one of the three ways in which America is hurting muslims:

The other two things being US troops in Saudi and US support for Israel. Also (going back a few years) whenever there were muslim demonstrations they tended to focus on two issues - Palestine and the sanctions. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the sanctions were a major peeve of (even moderate) muslims.

So it’s not too much of a jump to make to assume that the sanctions were one of the things that was driving people into the arms of various terror groups.

I’m not sure on this either, but you might find answers at this site, which lists some U.N. Resolutions. I couldn’t find any reference to lifting of sanctions until March of 2003, which is after the war began. Still, if memory serves, Russia, France and Germany were lobbying the U.N. to lift sanctions as early as 2000. You might have to google for earlier resolutions.

I’m pretty certain that there were no actual resolutions to lift the sanctions. France, Russia and Germany may have been lobbying but that means nothing. The sanctions were being imposed by America (supported by Britain) and since America and Britain were in the process of regularly bombing Saddam’s facilities it seems unlikely they would have suddenly stopped, lifted the sanctions and become best buddies with him again.

Far as I’m aware there was absolutely no likelihood of the sanctions being lifted. That’s one of the reasons (I think) why they had to go to war with him. They knew they couldn’t keep the sanctions going forever (partly because the longer they went on, the more they inflamed muslim passions) but at the same time they couldn’t lift the sanctions because they didn’t trust Saddam (and also they would lose face).

So removing Saddam was the only option they had left. This meant they would get rid of the sanctions and get rid of Saddam all at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone.

I don’t know about an Executive order, but the point stands about the connection between Euro conversion and oil. Hussein did, in fact, convert trading oil to the euro in 2000. Cite. Apparently, it is still being talked about. Cite.

Yes I know Saddam switched to the Euro. What I’m not sure about is this switch back to the dollar.

I’m not saying it hasn’t happened. It just seems strange that I haven’t heard anything about it. One would think that there would have been outrage in all the usual places (left-wing newspapers etc).

The fact that I’ve not heard anything about this makes me wonder whether it’s true. I can’t find anything on google despite searching for terms like “currency oil iraq”.

This page lists all Executive Orders made by President Bush since he took office. She says that the relevant Executive Order was in May 2003. This Executive Order from May 22 is the only one that concerns Iraq but it doesn’t say anything about switching back to the dollar (unless I’m reading it wrong). It says that there can be no legal come back against the US oil companies operating in Iraq. This is dodgy enough in itself, but it doesn’t say anything about switching the currency:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.