expatbrit

Joined

• started 226 topics
• posted 3,137 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by expatbrit

• 
  45

  'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation

  by Xander in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read:subject: america's madness - john le carre .

  the united states of america has gone mad .

  john le carre .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  LeCarre's writing is astounding.

  No really. How on Earth did he manage to write such a long article with his tongue so far up Saddam's ass?

  I hope he says hello to Robin Cook while he's up there.

  Expatbrit
• 
  33

  The real victims of "peace"

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the victims are the children, of course.. in 1999 unicef (the united nations children's fund) conducted a survey in iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on iraq, imposed by the united nations.. what had sanctions done?the surveys reveal that in the south and center of iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999).

  likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame.

  the surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Ultimately, this is all about oil and nothing else.

  That is another anti-war myth. Where are the economic figures and rational theory to back up such claims? If you think that this war is exclusively about oil, you've really got a dose of Stockholm Syndrome with regard to Saddam.

  Reality is different, fortunately:

  All about oil?Jan 23rd 2003
  From The Economist print edition

  
  
  Why invading Iraq would not produce an oil bonanza for America

  “IF WE are the occupying power,” said Colin Powell, America's secretary of state, on January 22nd, Iraq's oil fields “will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people.” The Bush administration was examining different ways of managing the oil fields in the event of America invading Iraq, he said. Stung by criticism in much of the world that lust for oil is driving its enthusiasm for war, the Bush administration is trying to reassure sceptics that Iraqi oil would not be run only to suit America. Yet even without these assurances, it is far from certain that Iraqi oil could be the bonanza for America that its critics imagine.

  These critics claim that any post-Saddam regime—which they presume would be a puppet of America—would move quickly to start pumping out vast quantities of oil. It would surely give in to American pressure to leave the OPEC cartel of price-fixers. Iraq's gushing wells would quickly undermine the cartel's grip, prices would collapse and OPEC might even be destroyed altogether—taking with it such unsavoury regimes as Saudi Arabia's.

  Actually, even if Mr Powell's assurances turned out to be flimsier than they appear, there are good reasons to think Iraq would not become either an OPEC -slayer or America's private petrol station. Two new reports on the subject stress the constraints and challenges—not the easy pickings and limitless bounty—that Iraq's oil represents for America.

  One report, by the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) and the James Baker Institute of Rice University, argues that Iraq's oil is not the prize it seems from afar. Iraq has vast reserves, but its infrastructure is, in the words of Dutch experts who inspected it a few years ago, in “lamentable” condition. A decade of sanctions and under-investment have cut Iraq's output and done permanent damage.

  In the short run, a war would further disrupt Iraqi production, possibly leading to greater market power for OPEC and maybe $40-per-barrel crude

  In the short run, a war would further disrupt Iraqi production (especially if Saddam Hussein were to destroy oil wells): the result would be greater market power for OPEC and maybe $40-per-barrel crude, says Phil Verleger, an energy economist affiliated to the CFR . After that, even assuming that rebuilding the oil sector were a top priority for a new government, and oil revenues were immediately redirected for that purpose, the CFR -Baker study reckons that it would still take nearly a decade and up to $40 billion to revive Iraq's oil sector. That could lift Iraqi output to 4.2m-6m barrels per day, up from around 2.5m bpd today. However, it would still fall far short of Saudi Arabia's whopping output of over 8m bpd today. That is why no truly independent Iraqi government would ever leave OPEC to go for volume instead: the Saudis have so much more oil than anyone that they will always win a price war.

  Besides, talk of a speedy revival of Iraq's oil sector may be too optimistic. A report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) observes that, after a regime change, there would be many competing claims for money that would slow investment in oil: buying food, financing reconstruction, paying for “democracy building” and keeping the peace. Iraq also has debts of over $100 billion—not including war reparations due to Iran and Kuwait for Mr Hussein's past aggressions. However, this argument would be weaker if an occupying American government footed the bill for oil investment.

  In an effort to curry favour with anybody ready to oppose UN sanctions, Mr Hussein has offered juicy chunks of Iraq's oil bounty to companies from Russia, China and France—countries whose geopolitical strategies are also tainted by oil. Whether America could tear up such contracts and “pre-contracts” is unclear. American and British firms, which have been prevented from bidding for such contracts, would lobby to have them scratched and retendered (along with other Iraqi oil contracts) in a contest in which they have (at least) a level playing field. But to avoid a legal morass, the CFR -Baker report recommends the immediate creation of a UN dispute-resolution mechanism. Unless some way is found to provide a secure legal framework for oil concessions, much-needed foreign investment in Iraq could be delayed by years while the lawyers bicker.

  In short, for all the accusations that America's war plans are motivated by the goal of cheaper oil, there would probably be no such prize, at least for many years. As the CFR -Baker report says: “There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil.” It does not expect a bonanza.
• 
  33

  The real victims of "peace"

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the victims are the children, of course.. in 1999 unicef (the united nations children's fund) conducted a survey in iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on iraq, imposed by the united nations.. what had sanctions done?the surveys reveal that in the south and center of iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999).

  likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame.

  the surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Winston Churchill gassed the kurds too. Strange old thing, morality.

  Expatbrit
• 
  10

  I need to vent. (Taxes)

  by scumrat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this, but here it goes.

  i had just received my tax forms back from my accountant with a note stating that he tried to call me but had a invalid number.

  in writing he told me that he did not put my rent down as a deduction just like last year.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  From the vantage point of 16 years in the accounting field, my opinion is that everyone should do their own taxes, unless they have very complicated situations. For most people, keeping the tax guide open and handy while you do your return is sufficient. Simply follow the line numbers.

  Doing this will give you a better idea of your finances and general tax knowledge to impress your friends with at the pub, plus give you some planning ideas for next year.

  Like for instance, Mary, creating situations where you can use mortgage interest as a write off. :)

  Expatbrit
• 
  33

  The real victims of "peace"

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the victims are the children, of course.. in 1999 unicef (the united nations children's fund) conducted a survey in iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on iraq, imposed by the united nations.. what had sanctions done?the surveys reveal that in the south and center of iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999).

  likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame.

  the surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Hello again Hillary:

  You mentioned:

  Torture of its citizens, often on a massive scale is taking place in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Columbia, Ethiopia, China, Tibet, Burma, North Korea, Indonesia, Peru, many African states and many other countries.

  Yes it has. And to answer your question, I hope that the US (and hopefully the West) does start in on this very long list. It's about time. Enough is enough.

  To try and use this as a point against the removal of Saddam isn't logical though. Just because all oppressive dictators can't immediately be removed means none of them should be? By that logic, just because I can't donate to all charities, I shouldn't donate to any of them.

  Nor are dishonourable and downright wrong actions of the past a reason to avoid action now. If anything, the responsibility is greater to act to correct those mistakes now, and as much as possible, make amends for them.

  Quite why dictators have a penchant for large mustaches is a mystery, though surely this can be used as a sort of early warning system.

  Simon said:

  Of course I am not supporting Saddam or his regime but anyone who think the USA s going to war because of the human rights abuses is seriously mistaken I think. I believe all the things that have been described were known about before the last war ... why not take him out then? Why support him at all before this?!

  No the US is not going to war just because of human rights abuses. I don't have that level of faith in them! Yet I don't think they are going to war just for oil either (the economics don't support it, for one thing). I wish Saddam had been taken out in the last Gulf War, or even better had not been installed in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20. But again, that is no excuse for not dealing with him now.

  Seven:

  Couldn't agree with you more. Diplomacy has a valuable place. But the trouble with diplomacy is that it requires at least a minute shred of willingness to compromise and act honourably on both sides. The Iraqi regime has neither. That is why diplomacy has failed miserably for 12 years, and would have failed for another 12 if the French had got their way. I've read Amnesty reports, and UNICEF, and WHO. None of them are renowned for being supporters of the US government. All of them show Saddam and his regime to be brutal mass murderers, and the sanctions to have been a human disaster (and a very valuable propaganda tool for Saddam).

  Enough is enough.

  Expatbrit
• 
  33

  The real victims of "peace"

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the victims are the children, of course.. in 1999 unicef (the united nations children's fund) conducted a survey in iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on iraq, imposed by the united nations.. what had sanctions done?the surveys reveal that in the south and center of iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999).

  likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame.

  the surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  [b]LB:[/b] Yes indeed. This proverb should be tattooed on Chirac's colon, so he has something to read while his head is up his ass.
  
  [b]Dana:[/b] Much has been made of the war being for oil. These claims are nonsense, and bear no resemblance to economic realities. Just to increase oil production will take a huge investment and years of effort. Put very simply, if it's oil the US wants, war a very bad way of getting it. It's so easy for people to trot out anti-American tripe, and fool themselves that they are taking a moral position. Meanwhile, kids die.
  
  [b]Dakota:[/b] You hit the nail on the head. The crux of the matter is that while Saddam's regime continues, the suffering will continue. And without the use of military force, his regime will stay.
  
  
  
  
• 
  33

  The real victims of "peace"

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the victims are the children, of course.. in 1999 unicef (the united nations children's fund) conducted a survey in iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on iraq, imposed by the united nations.. what had sanctions done?the surveys reveal that in the south and center of iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999).

  likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame.

  the surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  The victims are the children, of course.

  In 1999 UNICEF (The United Nations Children's Fund) conducted a survey in Iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the United Nations.

  What had sanctions done?

  The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.

  And in practical terms, what does this mean?

  Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."

  So, we have an eight year period, and 500,000 premature deaths of children under 5.

  500,000 / 8 years = 62,500 per year = 1,202 per week = an average of 171 children per day under 5 dead.

  It's worth emphasising that this is just under fives. Obviously including up to age ten, for instance, would lead to higher figures. And since the survey, another four years of sanctions have been inflicted.

  This is the result of diplomacy. Twelve years of dying kids. It is the one reason, more than any other, why I support a war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, a regime which brought these sanctions upon the people of Iraq. Remove the regime, and you remove any rationale for continued sanctions. I don't care if Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction nastier than a toothpick. The UN sanctions are weapons of mass destruction, and they've hit civilians and their children for 12 years. If the regime stays, the sanctions will stay.

  When Mr. Chirac and the anti-war lobby argues for continuing diplomacy, more time for inspections, they also argue for more time for sanctions (I thought about calling this thread "Chirac - accessory to child murder."). Every day of delay is another day the regime continues in existence, and aid is denied the Iraqi people. Another day of starvation and disease for those children.

  So when you light your candles and march for peace and protest that "war is always the worst option", remember the children who are dying for your "morality." May they weigh heavily upon your consciences.

  Expatbrit

  http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

  http://www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.html
• 
  20

  What if the UN fell apart?

  by undercover in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts has incessently preached about the wild beast being the un and how the anglo-saxon world power of america-great britain was the force behind it.

  what if the un was to fold?

  looking at world events this weekend, i wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  If the UN fell apart?

  My goodness, what would I do in the morning without a regular pointless resolution regurgitating yesterday's regular pointless resolution? Maybe I'd be reduced to reading about French politicians using Iraq to rescue their all-but-dead political careers, or British politicians disguising maneuvering for a leadership challenge as a moral decision.

  Doesn't bear thinking about.

  Expatbrit
• 
  37

  Protesters Silence Iraqi Refugees

  by DakotaRed in

  1. social
  2. current

  and here i thought it was all about protecting the iraqi people.

  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp.

  february 26, 2003, 10:00 a.m.. voice of iraqis.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Oh and by the way, another 200 Iraqi kids died today because of another day of extended "peace".

  I hope you anti-war crowd are proud of yourselves for that.

  Expatbrit
• 
  37

  Protesters Silence Iraqi Refugees

  by DakotaRed in

  1. social
  2. current

  and here i thought it was all about protecting the iraqi people.

  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp.

  february 26, 2003, 10:00 a.m.. voice of iraqis.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Expatbrit, get real. That shit happens EVERY DAY in every country in the world. Are you really saying that you believe wrong shit doesn't happen to people in EVERY country in the world? Are you really saying that you believe that the US and it's "allies" in this particular situation are above being guilty of the very same things you are insinuating we should "prevent" in Iraq?

  No you get real. Of course people suffer and are victimized in every country every day. So what? Because we can't stop every wrong we shouldn't stop any wrongs? That seems to be your message!

  And if you really do equate the governments of the US and its allies with the regime of Saddam Hussein, you are so far out to lunch it's inconceivable. Maybe you should stop getting your information from anarchists and idiotic conspiracy theorists. www.illuminaticontrolmyshorts.com might satisfy your resentment of the Western governments that give you freedom to whine, but it wont give you an accurate picture of the real world.

  Expatbrit