Just adding to the volumes of trivia you guys already know about Iraq :

Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A: 6%

Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%

Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
A: Saudi Arabia

Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A: Iraq

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion

Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%

Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
A: 86 million

Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A: Since the early 1980's.

Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on their own?
A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the U.S. Government, along with Britain and private corporations.

Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?
A: No

Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000

Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A: 0

Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
A: 17 million.

Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?
A: No

Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000

Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the Western forces during the Gulf War?
A: 0

Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?
A: 6,000

Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?
A: 40 tons

Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?
A: 700%

Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?
A: 80%

Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defense?
A: No

Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?
A: No

Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/2003?
A: 10,000

Q: What percentage of these will be children?
A: Over 50%

Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
A: 11 years

Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: No

Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: 20 million

Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?
A: 12 years

Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38

Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?
A: 1.5 million

Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997?
A: 750,000

Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?
A: No

Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
A: 300

Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
A: 5

Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?
A: Yes

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history"?
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?
A: 90%

Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in?
A: Yes

Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65

Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+

Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8

Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
A: 0

Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
A: Over 10,000

Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: The U.S.

Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400

Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

From http://StandDown.net:

**The United States Government will spend more on the military in fiscal year 2003, than all the rest of the countries on Earth combined.

**Current expenditures are 437 billion and our past obligations are 339 billion, this equals 776 billion. 46% of our Taxes go to the Military Industrial Complex: (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm).

**This figure doesn't even begin to account for all of the off-budget, black projects, homeland security nor the 40+ billion the U.S. Government will spend on intelligence in 2003.

[ March 04, 2003, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Always interesting to see the whole list of things in one place. Makes it all the more powerful.

It also shows how quickly people either forget some of these facts, or how convenient it is to leave them out of the debate. To think that we spend that much of our tax dollars on military spending (again, not counting things we do not even know about), but we cannot keep everyone in this country fed and with medical care. All of the people who complain about their tax bill and not wanting to give people "free rides" should drive to the closest military contractor and ask for a refund.

We need to get our priorities straight in this country and start treating each other, and the people of the world, with more respect and dignity. I hope to see the day where money and influence are not the sole factors that determine policy. When the leaders who put what is "right" above what is most beneficial to them get to rule, that is the day better things will come.

for the record, let me state that I am against the current administration's decision to have war no matter what. Actually... let me amend that to say that I am against the decision by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to have war no matter what.

so yes.. I am against what is happening. however, let's not go totally overboard and declare Saddam a saint either.

I think we can all see that the above list by Bluebird excoriates the USA while assigning no blame to Hussein and Iraq (at least according to the list)

yet, the truth is that Hussein has his share of blame to go around also. yes for 10+ years, he hemmed and hawed about complying with the conditions imposed on him. But he has refused to acknowledge them and says he did not lose the previous war.

as for the section I quoted above, the millions of children who died due to lack of food and/or medicine died because of Hussein NOT due to the actions of the US.

when Iraq was allowed after the first Gulf war to sell oil again, it was with the understanding the money generated by said sales would be used to ONLY purchase food and medicine. We insisted on this and Hussein agreed to it.

However, Hussein has (in the absence of UN inspectors who left in frustration due to his non-cooperation) instead used the money generated on his military and not for the agreed upon food and medicine.

no matter how much one disagrees with GWBush, you can not place THAT blame on him. The blame belongs to Hussein.

you guys see how ugly pro-war extremism is. Don't think that anti-war/anti-Bush extremism is any better.

[ March 04, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

I don't know that the quoted stats were intended to paint an even darker picture of the UN/US. I felt when I looked at them, that they represented a great deal of suffering that will only get worse with US military action in Iraq.

I totally agree that Saddam has a great deal of responsibility for all of the deaths caused by lack of food and medical care. However, another contributing factor to this problem was the fact that the first Gulf War wiped out a lot of infrastructure needed to logistically care for the people of Iraq. Saddam then decided not to rebuild and fix the problem.

So, for me this particular issue comes back to aren't there other options available to get to an outcome that is better for everyone. Nobody is discussing the UN putting in a peace-keeping force that would help oversee the inspections, prevent any questions about the Iraqis moving their weapons programs around, and address the horrific conditions in the country. Military action is not the only answer. This is not a black or white issue. It would be nice to see our leaders thinking a bit more creatively. The fact they are not, indicates to me that their motivation lies somewhere other than stopping the evil Saddam.

Hussein is, BY NO MEANS, a saint. My position, for the record, though, is that Hussein CHARACTER (political, or otherwise) will never be a reason to force the global community into war.

Whether GWB likes it or not. Iraq's oil belongs to IRAQ.

My take on the oil "tiff" is that GWB is just angry because SH said no (in no uncertain terms) to him, and SH has the power to say no.

This agression on Iraq CANNOT be justified, and if a U.S. president can't look beyond an (unfounded*) threat to kill his father, well - what kind of man do we have in office?

*He never attempted to kill his father. And even if SH is a credible assassin, that puts him with 50-100 assassins worldwide who are plotting to get a shot at a (not necessarily Republican) U.S. president.

Blubird, you are foolish to call the situation in the Middle East a "tiff". It is a very real threat and you do no service to anyone, yourself included, by simplifying the situation to such levels. Please curtail your diarrhea of the mouth until you have come up with a clear understanding of the problem. Your hyperbole is exemplary of little-minded Americans with a lot to say. It's just embarrassing.

Oh, and welcome back from OZ.

I understand where you are coming from Bluebird, what the list tells me is that:

Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant

The West supported that evil tyrant as long as he was useful

Because he was still useful in 1991, we didn't take him out (I don't care what the UN resolution was - if we can go to war now without a UN resolution, we certainly could have taken out the dictator in 1991)

A lot of innocent Iraqi civilians are basically pawns in this battle between the ruling elite of Iraq, the US and at least some of the rest of the world.

We likely have not learned much since WWII - when the Allies decided to divide up the world according to their "national interests" and failed to realize the ramifications of their actions (e.g., the Yugoslavian mess, the Israeli/Palestinian mess, the Iraqi mess)

However, I have to note one problem with the Q&A. You state:

My best friend (Air Force Captain at the time)was in the Gulf for 11 months before, during and after the war. I had no idea where he was stationed, and distinctly remember the Scud attack on a US barracks in Saudi Arabia that killed over 100 Air Force personnel. I remember the fear as I waited for confirmation he was not in that casualty list. I also know other members of the Armed Services were killed during the Gulf War, so I can't believe the casualty rate was 0.

As far as American casualties in the Gulf War, I also think there may have been more than zero, but I also recall reading back in the early 1990s that the majority were due to FRIENDLY FIRE! That is something that's never discussed, nor do we hear about Gulf War Syndrome, caused by both Iraqi and American chemical weapons and the U.S.'s use of uranium tipped explosives and shells, which many veterans of that war are still dealing with.

The stats as laid out paint a hideous picture of the U.S., though I also believe that's not their intention--the ugliness inheres in the truth. We have no reason to be battling Iraq; Osama bin Laden, as we are now learning, is alive and well and floating around Pakistan, with Ahman al-Zawahiri, and the two, along the recently captured Shaikh Muhammad, are actively planning a new and virulent strike on the U.S. to coincide with the planned war against Iraq.

The fact that some intelligence has pointed to the New York City subways--WHY WON'T THESE BASTARDS LEAVE NEW YORK ALONE???--really, really terrifies me. But I don't get any sense that pResident or his cronies give a rat's ass about the death of Iraqis, the poor American soldiers and reservists, or innocent citizens. I don't pray often, but I am asking the Lord to please somehow avert this mess, let someone--if it has to be Pakistan, so be it--catch Osama bin Laden before he launches his next strike, and let Saddam just fall dead of a heart attack so that the whole thing ends without the sort of horrific bombing that the U.S. military has already announced is supposed to "stun" the "enemy" in surrender. "Stun" is an understatement far more malevolent, I think, that Bluebird's rather mild use of "tiff."

I gotta go with shore and his sentiments. Bluebird.. what are you talking about??? :confused:

ok. I agree Iraq's oil belongs to Iraq..... annnnndddddd... so what?

and the second phrase...... Hussein "said no" to Bush ....... huh? what are you talking about???

I think the President has said that the elimination of Saddam Hussein is not the primary goal. The disarming of Iraq - specifically the supposed WMD's - is the goal. It is understandable that many, perhaps including the President, equate the two but it is not what he is saying as I understand it.

Has anyone else read the timeline here on the 9/11 hijackings? REALLY CREEPY AND SCARY! One question I always asked, since my partner was set to fly that day and was grounded in Newark, was why our Air Force, the best in the world, could not intercept these planes. The chronology given on Elsis's site really makes me wonder. WHAT on earth was going on that morning? Why have we never had a thorough accounting of what the FBI and CIA knew and didn't do? Or of the military's actions that morning? Or of anything? Why has this never been discussed? Is the war in Iraq also yet another way to divert our attention from the economy AND the intelligence failures AND whatever was truly going on between January 2000 and September 11, 2001 in our government? I have chills running up my spine just reading this thing....

Come on, Sportinlife! Don't you think they'll want Saddam's head on a pike? Puh-lease. No one has found these "weapons of mass destruction," and there's no proof that Saddam has the quantities W. claims. Yes, he has some weapons, an army, etc. But it remains doubtful what he has. If we have ALL THIS INTELLIGENCE why don't we share it with the inspectors SO THAT THEY CAN IDENTITY THE WMDs and order him to destroy them? BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE IS MADE UP! It's falsified. Why hasn't our government--or Britain, or Spain or Bulgaria, or whomever--given CONCRETE proof of these things? At least to the inspectors?

Don't believe a thing W. says. He wants to occupy Iraq as a way of diverting our attention from the post-war slop in Afghanistan, the economy, his failure to advance any signs of peace between Israel-Palestine, etc., as well as have total control of Iraq's oil supplies. A puppet government will be installed whenever we defeat Saddam and clean up whatever horrors he leaves (like a dying rat), and that puppet state will give us generous concessions on oil. That is, unless a civil war breaks out there. Turkey's military sees that it could seriously lose out if it's not involved, so it's forcing the democratic government's hand, whatever that may lead to. I wouldn't be surprised if lawmakers there and the PM receive very specific instructions: either you follow the U.S.'s plans and we will then invade northern Iraq/Kurdistan after the U.S., or you will end up in the Bosporus or Aegean, whichever is closer.

It's only out of deference to the fact that this is a group discussion that I don't scream, "Who, on this planet, doesn't get that BY NOW?!?!?!?!?"

Nevertheless.....

I'll just say that I agree, fantomas.

BTW: Turkey, for all its "potential", is yet an extremely desperate nation with a gut-wrenching history of butchering and oppressing their most famous minority, the Kurdish people(s).

Sadly enough, Turkey, is still developing in the morals department. It is going to hustle any bargain it can get to put away a few dollars. Everyone (especially the U.S. powers that be) knows this, and (in Turkey's favor) is taking Ankara (the seat of government) for everything it can get from them - "clearance-sale style".

Turkey, beuatiful as it is, is a super bargain right now. They really have no choice but to try to make a decent hustle.

But, for the rest of the world, it's clear that a post-conflict Iraq (the region, by extension?) will be at the beck and call of the U.S. And Iraqi oil will be available AS GWB WANTS IT, no matter if, on paper, he's paying something for it.

[ March 07, 2003, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Blubird, from where do you reguritate this stuff?
I just have no idea where you're coming from. Why do I even log on to your threads? I guess it's like a car wreck, as you go by you just have to look.

No, you don't. I don't need your favors. frown