Robert Fisk's article is here. The basket of currencies to replace the US dollar in the oil market would be comprised of "...[the] Chinese yuan, the Euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar."

Thanks for sharing that.

The scratching out bit is hilarious, that's pretty much what they do here in Kuwait only its far more draconian obviously magazines have entire pages ripped out, so T3 and Maxim are very slender magazines here. Funnier is when it comes to mail order catalogs like JC Penny or say Victoria's Secret, customs women in large factory setting sit in abbayas with large permanent black markers covering up boob, the words Israel and changing Persian Gulf to Arabian gulf.

Hilarious is when you order something like death metal, there is a a fairly good chance it will get stopped for being demonic or witch craft content.

To stay alive I do crack cocaine on weekends.

Anyone who says torture is 'ok' and we should use it more in the US and abroad on people....

....has never, ever, been tortured. Do not even have the slightest clue of the concept. And oh yes, they would gamble heavily that they could resist for a long time before breaking. Deluded fools.

Before Mr. Bush, the USA's standing in the world was pretty high. Countries around the world wanted to do business with us, be around us, be part of the 'winning team'. The first Iraq war was a good example. How many nations came to help us push Iraq's forces from Kuwait? Like 27? How many did Mr. G. W. Bush have to pay off to 'help' in the next Iraq war? Like five (the Brits had to go, cus they are our biggest allies and neighbors....Canada and Mexico were excluded). When 9/11 took place, EVERYONE (except the taliban and Iraq) pleaded to come help, send funds/troops/aid to help our citizens. How many nations offered to help when Hurricane Katrina hit a few years later? NONE.

Yes, it will take some time to refoster good will, world wide. Mr. Obama is our ace in the hole.

Being attacked since 9/11? If you had to travel to the other side of the planet to kill those damn nationalists. And then, in response to you doing that, that nation sends its people to your backyard to fight you. Would you again travel all the way around the world, to bomb and murder them? Or just kill the ones in your backyard? That sums up Iraq/Afghanistan. Those terrorists dont need to go to America to kill Americans. They do it locally. How many people have died from Iraq/Afghanistan? 8,000+? And permanent injuries (physical, mental, emotional)? 50,000+?

Maybe this host should get a clue on torture and the method by which terrorists kill Americans. His IQ is lower then pond scum now.

newtboy: Thanks for the well thought out response. It's a welcome change to many kneejerk cliche responses others are fond of.


Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy

He was simply a leader among many leaders within the mujahideen. After the Soviets were defeated dozens of different leaders amongst the mujahideen all started fighting with each other for control of the country. So it is just as accurate to describe our support for the mujahideen as support for Osama's enemies. My point is simply that in reality support for the mujahideen was support for the whole which was bad enough. Describing that as support for a specific individual within the mujahideen is not accurate and is in fact very misleading.


True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power.

I think you have your dates a little confused. The 60's-70's predates everybody you mentioned, including Reagan. Saddam didn't even take power in Iraq until 79 and Osama wasn't fighting in Afghanistan until the late 70's. The Soviet Afghanistan war didn't even start until 79. All once again predating Reagan and everyone else mentioned. Anyways, it's all more of an aside issue other than to make clear that Carter was the one around for the beginning of much of the mess.


Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity.

I don't strongly disagree with this, there is a certain amount of fog/unclarity about who knew what and when. But I haven't any problem with condemning aid to Saddam any point after it was known he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which clearly America did not stop after witnessing. It wasn't until he used them on Halabja and it couldn't be blamed on Iran that America cooled towards Saddam, which in my eyes was also much too late.


I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper.

That much I'm very glad to hear.


I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target.

I couldn't agree more, and for the longest time opposed the second gulf war on nearly that basis alone. Upon listening to more accounts, particularly of the plight of the Kurds, I started to see it a little differently. Saddam may not be my first choice for monsters that need removal, but I must admit that he IS on the list. If he is on my list of monsters for removal, then I support his removal, even if America is only choosing him because it coincides with their self-interest.


Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.

I thought that too, but I've since learnt more about Saddam's rule and discovered that he may not have been the most monstrous dictators in the world, but he was in the very top of the class. In his campaign to exterminate the Kurds he setup concentration camps for them. All Kurdish men in these camps were executed and buried in mass graves. The children and elderly were so mistreated and abused that many died, virtually no children under the age of 5 survived the camps. The women were systematically raped. Not for the guards amusement or to humiliate the women, but to literally breed the Kurdish people out of existence. Oh, and the prisoners in these camps and rape rooms were not limited to the Kurdish people, but anyone even suspected of opposing or questioning Saddam's rule. Saddam was unimaginably more than just a very bad man.


I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.

Agreed, and I'll happily agree to condemn that as well.


American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region.

I agree more with the rest of your paragraph than this start. American foreign policy is not the most important factor, but just one of many vitally important factors.

I again thank you for your reply and can't agree more with your overall assessment of how complicated the issues are and the importance of discussing them beyond the extreme left and right camps that so many seek comfort in.

bcglorf- I contend that continuing a policy makes it yours, and Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy, and supported (and trained him and his) in the tactics they use today against us. (OK, not in the use of suicide bombers, but the battlefield tactics they still successfully use).
True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power. It just so happens that 2 of these people became VP, and one President. That does not excuse Carters failings, or Clinton's, but they (like Regan) did not create the problem, they just failed at solving it. I should have left Bush2 out too I suppose, he didn't create the problme, he just failed miserably at solving it.
As I recall (and I'm not a historian) many of Saddam's actions you call monstrous happened before Bush SR was president, and while he still had the support of the US (publicly or privately). Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity. I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper. I disagree that removing him from power was a prudent thing to do, and I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target. Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.
I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.
This is not, as many wish to claim, a black or white issue. This is an issue that goes to the heart of what is wrong with America today. Dissolving multifaceted, complex problems down to a simplistic "one extreme or the other extreme" argument is not only not helpful in the least as far as solving the problems, it creates the new problem of dividing us into two, diametrically opposed factions that can not solve a problem with compromise or reason, but only come up with rhetoric, attack, and insult.
The puppet we put in power (or gave the tools to take and keep power at least) in the middle east that killed and raped in our name was Osama, not Saddam. He was killing and raping the soviets and their allies at the time, so we were happy with it. Our foreign policy created Osama's organization, and propped up Saddam for quite some time. If we ignore these facts, we are doomed to repeat them at our peril.
American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region. There are certainly other factors in play in the region, which should not be ignored, but when considering our policies, we need to consider them fully, not precurserorly. Ignoring the faults of our allies is perilous, just as ignoring our own faults is. You don't have to be a blame America Firster to see that our actions aren't perfect, as Blame America Neverists wish you to believe.

By predecessors, I'm guessing you mean Bush Sr. himself AND Cheney, along with (I assume) your hero, Reagan. They ALL supported both Sadam and Osama in their time.

You'd presume wrongly about Reagan. Should I presume Carter a hero of yours? Reagan's 'support'(we'll get to why this is in quotes) for Osama was merely a continuation of the policy started by good old Jimmy Carter.

You are playing too loose with the facts by equating support for the mujahideen with support for Osama. The truth is America under Carter and Reagan supported a jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's really just as bad, or even worse, but the implications of it are still importantly different and the context you give makes it outright false.

As for Saddam, you need to be consistent. I'll happily condemn support for a monster like Saddam. I would hold the one reservation though that it is much easier to see his true nature with the advantage of hindsight. To me, it is harder to condemn handling Saddam incorrectly when his nature was unclear than after it was undeniable.

By the time Bush Sr. was president, Saddam's actions had made his nature undeniable. He was a monster willing to do anything and everything to get what he wanted. He would use chemical weapons, he would commit genocide, he would annex neighboring states. Upon that nature being clear, I can not condemn the act of removing Saddam from Kuwait, nor of removing him from power in Iraq.

Why is it that some people believe that American foreign policy with Iraq is the sole and only factor to consider when looking at the situation? Are people truly that naive or simple minded? Is it just that it makes people more comfortable? What is it, I just can not understand it.

Why are people so content to believe Saddam was just a puppet put in power by America and that America used him to rape and pillage the middle east until they'd used him up and then decided to kill him and move on to the next puppet. More over, why do people who believe that utterly refuse to consider or look at any other factors or influences that have occurred in Iraq and the middle east over that time to at least make a half hearted attempt to verify the story?

>> ^acidSpine:
The whole fucking Iraq fiasco is a war crime. I find it incredible that someone has been singled out as a criminal.
I mean if they intend to prosecute somebody on the grounds that they killed Iraqi civillians shouldn't Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and all of their cronies be up infront of the judge or was the crime that they did it "for fun" rather that profit or strategic gain?


Over-simplifying the entirety of Iraqi politics into the singular designation of one big war crime is just ignorant. At the least when Bush Sr. went to war against Iraq Saddam had annexed Kuwait, and the evidence of his genocide against the Kurds was clear. When Bush Sr. came into office and was faced with the knowledge of what Saddam was truly like and willing and capable of doing, would it really have been more noble to do nothing? Remember, at that point Bush Sr. can NOT travel backwards through time to stop his predecessors from providing aid to Saddam.

Calling Iraq one big war crime is as stupid and ignorant as Fox declaring it the greatest event ever.

Blackwater is different in the same way Abu-Grahib was different. Or to put it just slightly different than you phrased it, killing civilians for 'fun' IS different from killing combatants in a war or battle.

interesting
but unapplicable title i think
a conventional explosive would probably be useless here.. it would just turn the rock to mush and would leave the possibility of making the problem worse
while a nuclear detonation will force the rock to compress around the detonation bubble
also, getting a comparable conventional payload to that location would be highly impractical

i'm not any expert on oil/gas issues though
the iraqis set the oilfields on fire as they retreated so there might be some good documentaries about that
werner herzog did a beautiful documentary about the oil fires of kuwait in 1992; Lessons of Darkness

Personally I think the words insurance and health care should not be allowed to be placed together.

The insurance market is based around making a profit, ultimately it means DENYING coverage in any way possible. Their motivation is not to help you. But to help their accounts to stay in the black. Their most important customers are those who are not in need of any health care but pay their insurance anyhow.

Am an advocate for the single payer health system.

However I understand that is akin to socialism for most Americans, even though most Americans probably don't remember exactly what that word means anymore.

The government now is trying to basically regulate the public insurance market into making it accessible to all Americans and not simply arbitrarily denying coverage. The government is already involved in the Medicare system for citizens over 65. By all accounts that system is working well. The only problem being the high cost of medication which is a drug pharmaceuticals issue not a medicare one.

In Kuwait there is universal health care for all residents and citizens. Everyone receives a medical card. If I have a tooth ache I can go to my local clinic and in the hour or so get treatment. I can go to an emergency clinic and get looked at right away if am in severe pain.

There is adequate health care provisioned for all. The problem arises in getting access to higher level services that are rationed or placed in a priority system for citizens first and expats second. Citizens are and can be taken abroad for treatment, the government pays for that. Sometimes the queue extends to a few months but this mostly only applies to non critical cases. Only knowing people within the medical community might get you moved forward. But this is a lack of investment issue, the hospitals and general infrastructure has not been invested in or expanded due to 4 different governments in the last 3 years, political infighting, the replacement of MOH heads and a general lack of leadership. These are symptoms that are now being dealt with through voter action.

At the same time Kuwait has a large private health care sector independent of the public one. With only government intervention to prevent malpractice. You can receive almost all treatments offered publicly in private practice bar really high end stuff. The cost is very high however but comes with a more personalized service and better facilities. The major problem in the private sector is a beauractic crunch to further development due to MOH restrictions. Most of the time these are motivated by private interests interfering.

Overall the health of this nation far exceeds most other places I lived in, the major problems now in Kuwait are life style based due to poor diet choices, smoking and such leading to diabetes and obesity being a large killer, followed by cancers, heart disease and so on.

>> ^bcglorf:
That's all fine and good, but can one honestly say Iraq would be more stable after an internal revolt than it is now?


God, you're a fucking pig.

Saddam was our guy. He was tricked into invading Kuwait. See April Glaspie. He would have done pretty much anything he was told, other than turn his nation's oil over to the global petroleum concerns.

The Iraqi people did not invite us into their country. We've killed over a million of them and yet, people like you insist this is a good thing.

Obama's wrong.

I don't know why he insists on kissing conservative ass, but it will come back to haunt him.

You're probably a fucking liar, and if you're not, you're still a fucking idiot if you think Iraq is better off now.

And, no, forcing them to sign long-term contracts with corporations for inflated prices is not doing them any good.

An angry little tirade? Yes, because I've gone over this a thousand times with a thousand different idiots, and you are the proverbial straw on my back.

The question is why you are so eager to help private oil companies steal something that rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people?

I guess it's because you care about them so much.

Or more likely you've been effectively brainwashed, and it's doubtful there was much brain there to begin with.

"Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well."

You compared Saddam to Hitler. Oh, you're fucking brilliant.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.
Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.
No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.
And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.
Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.



Whats ironic is that you and others who make comments like this seem not to have cared a whit about what was happening to Iraqis and Kurds whilst under Saddam. Aside from the issue of "stealing" oil or whatever the case may be I challenge anyone to say that Iraqis and Kurds lived great lives under Saddam. Americans went in there stirred the Hornets nest and now are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If it works (still a long road) then it will be one of the greatest things ever but if it doesnt (with the help of people who are blinded by their indignance) then it will be a disaster. Point is....no saddam is good stuff. But perhaps people like you are removed and immersed enough in your pacifist dreamland to not have cared about the wives, sisters and daughters who were regularly stolen and raped while their siginficant others were fed feet first into wood-chipers by Saddams sons. I suppose the gasing of thousands of Kurds was awesome too so long as we weren't "stealing" oil. As long as its not close to home right? Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well.

Well I guess Americans could have just sanctioned Saddam into compliance. Seems to work great so long as the UN gets involved right? Maybe he would have slowed down with the mass graves, the torturing of families and other potential non-compliants and the utilization of what was the 3rd largest army in the world. I agree with your thought-process....as long as the slaughtering of thousands is kept in house and perpetrated by the local tyrant then we should never...under any circumstances....interfere. The loss of lives is never acceptable especially when made in the name of other less fortunate people. And asking for any sort of compesation in return, in whatever form, is always a big no-no as well.

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $120 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.
(source)

This video is about two years old, but the gist of it holds true today.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
Not to piss on the parade of lots of hard work but this is fucking stupid.


Totally. But Americana, the company behind this ridiculous stunt in Kuwait, got alot of press time for it.

alright first off then let me introduce my self
I'm the C to the o-L-D, one Eighty Seven
oooh I heard that the player with the Speech
cause it's me KM.G more flex then sex of the bitch
ooh yes, my brother takes two to the tangle
and since we got them when we get them, we better use the right angle
so I'm push, push in the back of the bush
cause it's a wonderful for feelin'
Yeah, cause we got the good for y'all suckers in ninety deuce
the whole part of gaffle, the whole gallon of zeuce
so I'ma ease up on them, real quick watch me hit them
brothers fall on the racial, what we hit them up for
cause when I'm on the bounce, I roll wit the set then comin' out
to take your car, your women, your whole damn house
so now I strapped with the quickness "yeah"
I flex my ends into my Benz and let God be the witness
oooh I'm finna teach you how the body slam, let me show you
but steppin' to my ball I got somethin' dope for you
so hold zone, to my willie
and don't be scared when we do the bug boogie
Yeah, it's like bam bam, bambam, that's the sound of my heater
when the ill stuff jumps
I keep it strickly confidential, bullet Proof is requested
got the fits in my hand and I've already blessed it
so toast to the record G
cause I'm C-O-L-D, the beat is kinda helpin' and I'm tipsy
cause every thing is on the one, it's a natural high
when I get to the hook of the joint, you know why...

To G or not to G, which is the answer, out of control
console your soul
Yeah they're schemin' on the big hit, and tryin' find a quick pick
lookin' for a real shit [tires screeching and car crash]
hold up, but that's counterfeit
on the real the funk don't appeal
You think you got clout, but you really down and out
so hold on tight, as we take you down the running way
how many, how many times I got to tell you that I don't play
ooh and if you don't know, I have to change my barrel
cause I roll on my ride around the way to Sack
oooh, yeah we did it like Venus
see it's been like 89 since the last time you've seen us
tell me, my peoples did you miss me on the real
who's never Paper tramps like hollyfield
Yeah, vision this, that sucker tried to sky me
when I'm harder then Kuwait or california earthquake
cause I got the munchies for your love so come and kick it
but you better come prepared cause it gets kinda wicked
Yeah, cause you can walk a blank if you schemin' for my bank
don't play me like a trick, yo my name ain't Marry
cause every thing is on the one, it's a natural high
when I get to the hook of the bullet, you know why...