To make them leave Iraq is easy. As you can see, Clinton and Nakasone has inked that Japan has to pay almost $10bn to make 8,000 marine to go to Guam. Probably Japan will not pay directly to US government, but to "American friends" who will build the military facilities in Guam, you know what I mean, right?. Probably it will not be Halliburton, it was "American friend" of the previous administration.
:) Peace and best wishes. Xi Japan, U.S. ink new accord on relocation of U.S. Marines to Guam http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/17/content_10832939.htm ... Under the accord, Japan will spend a total of 2.8 billion U.S. dollars on "projects to develop facilities and infrastructure on Guam" for the relocation of some 8,000 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force personnel and their 9,000 family members from Okinawa by 2014. Japan is also bound to provide 6.09 billion dollars of the estimated 10.27 billion dollars needed for the relocation of Marines to the U.S. territory in the Pacific. .... In the fiscal 2009 budget, the Japanese government has already earmarked 34.6 billion yen (376.09 million dollars) for the relocation projects in the fiscal 2009 budget. .... On Feb 18, 8:07 pm, "Sumerian.." <[email protected]> wrote: > Saddam, Iraq and Obama :Pakistan Daily > > Saddam, Iraq and Obama > > Pakistan Daily > > Saddam, Iraq and Obama PDF Print E-mail > > Written bywww.daily.pk > > Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:24 > > It a maneuver typical in liberal democracy, Obama has broken, prior to > his inauguration, all of his campaign promises. He is continuing with > the Wall Street bailout as Americans go bankrupt, he is considering a > draft, and will keep Americans in Iraq indefinitely. This is not > personally about Obama, who, in my personal view, is a moral man far > beyond the mentally ill McCain, but is inherent in the system itself: > liberal democracy demands a wealthy series of donors who control > campaigns, write the "promises," and demand repayment as soon as their > client is "elected." This is a systemic problem. > > What is far more significant here is the violent nature of liberal > democracy. Since the fortunate fall of the USSR, the expansionist, > revolutionary force is the neo-conservative United States, who believes > that it has the right to remake the world in its ideological image. To > back this up, George Mason University and corrupt American academia in > general has held, almost without dissent, that liberal, capitalist > democracy is the final end of history, and hence, the beacon of this > final ideological movement, the end of history and the final expression > of the French Revolution, needs to remake the globe into a "one world" > system dominated by US capital. Both the Clinton-type neo-liberals and > the Bush type neo-conservatives hold the identical view but for > different reasons, the neo-libs hold to this on vaguely "humanitarian" > grounds, while the neo-cons hold it for "national security" reasons, > including Israel’s "security." > > But what is important is what the neo-con/neo-lib alliance has > destroyed. The media-driven "political debate" in America is a ruse. > The neo-con/neo-lib "discussion is in fact negotiations between > friends, the two pillars of the Temple of Solomon, the Right and Left > hand paths to Enlightenment and to One World. Their views are > identical, through the means of getting to their ends are very > different. But in terms of foreign policy they are identical: violence, > invasion and destruction. > > According to the neo-lib/neo-con alliance propaganda, Saddam Hussein > was an evil dictator. All evidence to the contrary was repressed. But > what are the facts? Do democracies deliver the goods better than > dictatorships? Lets look at a few points. > > 1. Saddam became a dictator because he had to. Iraq is a creation of > British colonialism, and is an artificial state held together only by a > strong state system; this is not the fault of Saddam. Of course, the US > invasion upset this system, causing far more damage and violence then > even Saddam was accused of. Because the alleged massacres he committed > were so shaky and based on minimal evidence, his rigged "trial" that > sent him to the gallows only convicted him of one charge of comitting a > war crime. His alleged "crime" amounted to about 10 minutes of the > firebombing of Japanese cities during World War II, or the war crimes > of the American Civil War, or Israel's current crimes in Gaza. Keep in > mind that the "hundreds of massacres and torturers" his "regime" was > accused of were quietly dropped during his trial. In reality, even the > prosecution during Saddam’s trial could find very little in terms of > abuse of power to directly link him to. As far as dictators go, Saddam > was very well behaved, and certainly he had no motive to be anything > else. > > 2. The United Nations had stated that Saddam’s social achievement in > Iraq was soon to create a "first world country" out of a third world > mess. Only a dictatorship could do this, since the religious and ethnic > violence was too vicious for a democratic system. The events, > especially the sectarian violence, over the last two years in Iraq > prove this. > > 3. Saddam, with oil money, used German technology to create a first > world health care system in Iraq, free of charge. The United Nations > > Development Program writes: > > In the 1980s, Iraq was widely considered to have one of the region’s > best health care systems, with advanced, technological specialist care, > and an extensive net of primary health care. However, after years of > war and sanctions, this situation has changed completely. Among the > current major problems are lack of health personnel, lack of medicines, > non-functioning medical equipment and destroyed hospitals and health > centers (Iraq Living Conditions Survey, 2004). > > 4. With the same oil money, Saddam imported western form of education > at all levels, including that for women, which led to him being hated > by the very Islamic forces that sought his removal. The White House > itself admits that by 1980, Saddam had 100% primary school enrollment > for all children regardless of sex or religion (White House Executive > Summary Report, 1.5.04) > > 5. He created a secular Iraq where Christians could feel safe. His > strongest backers were Christians, and many Christians worked for the > government and military, including foreign minister Tariq Aziz. > > 6. Hussein plowed the oil money into many domestic investments, to be > detailed below. > > Keep in mind that many international agencies have removed their > statistics from the 1970s and 1980s, prior to the American invasion and > war with Iran, so as to camouflage the achievements of the military > governments, of which Saddam was the key player as far back as 1968. > The World Bank and the IMF has censored much of its data, and has > removed its statistical reports from its website. Its almost humorous > how these internationalist agencies claim that their data is incomplete > because "economic data was kept a state secret by Saddam," but the much > more Iraq friendly OSCE, as well as independent researchers, had no > difficulty collecting data from the pre-war era. > > The main structural interests (outside of the obvious petroleum) in the > Saddam years (1968-2005) was food processing. Global Security reports > that it was the Ba’ath policy to make certain that Iraq was > self-sufficient in food, and hence, food processing plants were erected > in each major and minor city. At the same time, prior to the disaster > of the war with Iran, financed by the United States, the building > industry under the Ba’athists also developed strongly. Iraq, up until > the war, was free of foreign debt. Keep in mind that Saddam was the > power in the military government from 1968 on, and largely made > economic policy as deputy Chairman of the Ba’ath party. He did not > formally take over until 1979, however. > > Global Security writes the following: > > By the late 1970s the emphasis in development planning shifted > toward heavy industry and diversification away from oil. Iron and steel > production was set up with French assistance at Khor al-Zubair and the > defense industrial sector received a high priority. However, objectives > were ill defined and the economy’s concentration on oil was never > challenged. Inevitably, as with all other segments of the economy, > manufacturing and industrial diversification was scaled down when the > Iran-Iraq war began and never recovered. > > Pro-western author Ahmed Jiyad writes: > > The 1980s under Saddam began with Iraq recognized as being one of > the highly promising countries in the Middle East and the Third World > in terms of its economic development: a donor country, a creditor > country, a modestly outward FDI player, a cash country, and owner of an > estimated U.S. $36 billion in foreign assets. By the close of the 1980s > however, following the devastation of an eight-year war with Iran, Iraq > faced — for the first time in its history — a serious debt-related > liquidity problem. ("An Economy in A Debt Trap: The Iraqi Debt > 1980-2000." Arab Studies Quarterly, 2001) > > In a review of the book The Iraqi Economy under Saddam Hussein: Development > of Decline? writer Abbas Mehdi writes > > But despite the many impediments and adverse factors, Dr. Zainy > concludes in the first section of this book, Iraq's economy 1960-80 was > actually quite vibrant, achieving a real GDP growth of around 8 percent > per annum and a real per capita GDP growth of around 4.7 percent per > annum; such growth rates were among the highest in the world during > that 20-year period. > > London based writer Muhammed Ali Zilani writing in the Middle East Economic > Survey (July 2008) writes: > > To give examples of what happened, the successive Iraqi governments > used most of the oil money, whose cumulative amount reached around > $100bn by 1980, to finance the five-year economic development plans. As > a result of those genuine endeavors, the Iraqi GDP almost quintupled > over the period 1960-80, growing in real 1980 prices, from around > $10.7bn in 1960 to around $53bn in 1980, with a remarkable average > growth rate of 8% per annum. The Iraqi per capita income increased in > real 1980 prices about 2.6 times from $1,557 in 1960 to $4,000 in 1980, > making a yearly real growth of 4.7% despite the high Iraqi population > growth rate during that period of around 3.3% per annum. Furthermore, > on the road of economic diversification, the Iraqi oil sector’s > contribution to GDP decreased from 66% in 1960 to less than 62% in 1980. > > The economy under Saddam Hussein performed in nothing less than a > phenomenal way. Just dealing with one indicator, the general > performance of the GDP (which the World Bank says it "cannot find"), > the GDP went, from 1970 to the start of the war with Iran in 1980 from > $16.4 billion to a huge $53.9 billion, using 1980 American dollars. At > the same time, oil output only went up by 50%. Hence, the huge GDP > increase was due solely to the internal policies of the military > system, which was based on economic diversification and the > nationalization of the predatory, western oil firms, something that > made Saddam, even by his enemies, more and more popular by 1980. In > 1970, Hussein was a key player in the nationalization of the Iraqi > Petroleum Company, dominated by western capital who pulled the profits > from Iraq to western elite bank accounts. He was rightly seem as an > anti-imperialist crusader. Hence, according to Mossad, something needed > to be done, and hence, the US created the Iran-Iraq war, and financed > both sides. > > Here are a few more figures from the violently anti-Saddam writer Abbas > Alnaswari at the University of Vermont. Though Saddam did not take over > formally until 1979, Hussein was a key player in previous military > governments, and was a key player in the 1968 coup. He essentially > acted as Prime Minister from that time on. > > * Private consumption went up 13% yearly on average between 1970 and 1980 > > * Gross Fixed investment went up 27.6% yearly on average > > * Domestic Trade went up 17% yearly on average > > * Transport and Communication went up 20% yearly on average > > * Industry and Manufacturing went up about 13% yearly on average in the same > time span. > > All of these figures the World Bank, the IMF and Global Security claims > to "not exist." What is particularly nauseating is that the System > destroyed this economy, going from first world in 1980 to fourth world > in 2000, all based on US warfare, either by proxy or directly. The > System then says that the reconstruction numbers, showing a huge > American-financed growth in the last two years, though only about 25% > of pre-1980 numbers, is a "huge victory." This is the typical deceit of > system economists and academics. In other words, American reinvestment > in the region registers, as is typical, huge growth rates. The System > calls this a victory. But what it really is is the usage of American > tax money to reconstruct a system that it destroyed in the first place. > (All figures from Alnaswari’s piece in E.W. Nafziger, F. Stewart and > R.Väyrynen, eds., War, Hunger, and Displacement: The Origins of > Humanitarian Emergencies. Volume 2 (Oxford University Press, 2000), > pp.89-119). > > By the 1980 war, there was not a single independent voice that was not > calling Iraq an "Arab Tiger" in global economics. A dictatorship that > had delivered the goods better than any other Middle Eastern country. > All the while controlling the Islamic fanatics and creating a secular, > first world Arab country that was soon to dominate the region. The > Israeli panic is understandable, and hence, a joint Mossad-CIA mission > created the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, reducing both the military and > economic impotence, and not coincidentally, brought the oil industry > back under western control. Recently declassified documents prove > without a doubt that the CIA/Mossad coalition created the Iran-Iraq war > to destabilize the region and prevent with Iran or Iraq from become a > major power both economially and militarily. As the Iraqi unemployment > rate was about 10% in 1980 (Iraq had a huge population), it is not > almost 80% of the adult workforce today. > > Randy Stearns from ABC News writes in his (1998) The CIA’s Secret War in Iraq: > > In 1991, the CIA swung into action, spending roughly $20 millions on > anti-Saddam propaganda and at least $11 million in aid to various Iraqi > opposition groups in London and Kurdistan. The agency pursued two > parallel, but not necessarily compatible, strategies for ousting > Saddam. It first supported the Iraqi National Congress, a popular > political opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi. The INC tended to move > faster than its American sponsors anticipated, recruiting an > independent army and temporarily uniting Kurdish factions behind a > planned attack on Saddam’s forces. By late 1994 CIA field operatives > had set up a base in the northern city of Salahuddin and had begun > actively directing military activities. Top CIA and White House > officials, however, doubted that the INC could bring down Saddam and > were anxious about their ability to control the Kurds. They preferred a > second alternative, focused on a group of exiled Iraqi military > officers based in London called the Wafik, or Accord. Accord leaders > promised Washington that it could pull off a "zipless coup" to bring > down Saddam without dismantling the Iraqi state. > > Hence, the fact is that, since Saddam was relatively popular, the US > needed to use propaganda to paint a negative image of him. If Saddam > was not popular, why was there any necessity for the propaganda war? > Why was the Ba'th party banned from electorial competition under > American occupation? The fact is that Saddam’s economic gains had > created millions of workers who were a natural constituency for Saddam > and his policies. Hence, the CIA needed to create political movements > and blacken Saddam’s name where there were none before. > > Former Mossad agent Viktor Ostrovsky writes: > > The Mossad leaders know that if they could make Saddam appear bad > enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the > protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would > not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would > all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if > they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance > before he went nuclear. (The Other Side of Deception, Harper-Collins, > 1994) 254) > > Robert Fisk, journalist for the British Independent (sic) writes: > > Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest > war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a > half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons > with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did (Independent, > 12.30.06) > > Now apart from the "we did" silliness (as if the Americans, all at > once, demanded its government sell weapons to Iran and Iraq), Fisk, > normally an establishment hack, has it right. The war to destroy Saddam > came from the west. The only country that benefitted from the 1980-88 > debacle was Israel. The two losers were Iran and Iraq. Israel was the > only country that benefitted from the 9/11 debacle (whoever is > ultimately responsible), Israel was the only country that benefitted > form the two US-Iraqi wars, and the Israeli state is the only > beneficiary of the continued US occupation of the region, which is > acting like a magnet to attract all anti-American elements from around > the world to assist in the civil war the US invasion started. The one > thing the Israeli’s could not handle was a strong, secular and wealthy > Iraq. > > :: Article nr. 51798 sent on 06-nov-2009 05:58 ECT > > www.uruknet.info?p=51798 > > Link:www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/9460-saddam-iraq-and-obama-.html > > :: The > views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the > author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website. > > ======= > S1000+ > ======= > > --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha <mohammad_b_...@wrote: --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
