Yes, Egypt is on the list. It receives more US military aid than any country on Earth except Israel.
"Military dictatorship with a ruthless secret police. Routinely tortures and murders opponents. Many thousands in political prisons. Censored press. Sham parliament. As in the case of Iran under the late Shah Reza Pahlavi, FBI, CIA, and NSA all assist Egypt's secret police in repressing opposition and keeping the military regime in power." -
Eric Margolis
Don't forget Uzbekistan; one of the worst.
"...the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture." -
George Monbiot
There are places where the US government makes a token effort to support human rights. The Middle East and central Eurasia are not among those places.
And an excellent example of why our rights can so easily be eroded.
Our rights? Well it does affect the rest of us too, because it leads to more polluted air, greater strain on our shared power grid, and a consumer demand that will contribute to more of the US foreign policy we've been seeing lately. This Christmas display is an SUV of a different color.
I don't think Skavookie was criticizing the idea of putting up lights in general, it's just a matter of the ridiculous excess. The United States already consumes as much electricity as 40 per cent of the world's population, and here's a guy who's turning his house into an energy black hole, on the basis that it's pretty.
I have no control over this man's behavior, but I hope he's paying through the nose for that electricity. He certainly would be, if the Bush administration would quit subsidizing oil, coal, and nuclear, and actually let markets work.
Sanctions have ended and Saddam will not return. That is wonderful. But for the record:
Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money
Of course the Iraqi government was creating cash revenue for itself. The oil-for-food (O.F.F.) program only provided commodities in exchange for oil; it didn't allow the government any access to cash. How well would the US government function without cash? Oil smuggling was the only thing that gave a salary to Iraqi teachers, public healthcare workers, and civil servants. Physicians in particular began receiving salary increases that were proportional to the crumbling of sanctions in 2000. Sure, the regime invested in social services partly to reduce popular discontent; it was self-serving. But that doesn't change the fact that sanctions, not just Saddam, violated Iraqi human rights and were in fact designed to. Bush Sr. thought of this as "Making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people."
The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq
Actually no, they were supposed to appear to allow this on paper, but not in practice. For six years Iraq could sell no oil, which cut off 90 per cent of its foreign revenue at a time when Iraq imported two-thirds of its food. As the UN predicted (Bush Sr. ignored it), this led to massive malnutrition. In 1996 the O.F.F. program began, with a pointless cap on oil exports. Two years later the cap was removed, but the US and Britain tied up $5 billion of humanitarian supplies including many spare parts for the oil industry. The point wasn't to kill Iraqis; that was just an "acceptable" consequence of wrecking Iraqi oil production and undermining its global market influence. This should come as no surprise. Donald Rumsfeld certainly wasn't preaching human rights when he shook hands with Saddam, as Reagan was launching his campaign to support Iraq's unconventional weapons development.
No wonder UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday said the O.F.F. program was "designed to fail". I heard this with my own ears when Halliday spoke in New York; similar things from his successor Hans von Sponeck when he spoke in Milwaukee; and more diplomatically from Sponeck's successor Tun Myat when he spoke in Baghdad.
the facts are pretty simple.
Not really, as I have shown. I'm glad this is behind us, but if the history books are honest, they will slaughter the leaders on both sides.
I own an identical vehicle. The above advice is great, and I would add:
If you can buy an Insight with manual transmission instead of automatic, do it. The former has a very low fifth gear that greatly improves mileage on high-speed trips. It's not uncommon for stickshift Insights to get 80-90 mpg where the automatic version would get 65-70 mpg.
If you need power, you can hit a switch on the steering wheel to go into "Second Mode." This tells the computer to work the engine harder instead of resorting to battery. You lose efficiency but get much more power. That small engine is surprisingly potent. Second Mode kept me from bleeding off my battery on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and I always use when I need strong acceleration at highway speeds.
IRAQ supports terrorists and is trying to build nukes
Hmm, well, here's a defector who worked on the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for 30 years, and says that the nuclear program is ancient history.
I might add that if Donald Rumsfeld didn't like the gassing of the Kurds and the other atrocities, maybe he should have raised the issue after he shook hands with Saddam Hussein during a 1983 meeting, instead of inviting the Butcher of Baghdad to expand his military and business ties with the United States.
Give me one example of a time when Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction without the support of Ronald Reagan (esp. note 33), and I'll reconsider the idea that Iraq is an imminent threat to America.
Slashdot Mirror
The freeway blogger put it most succinctly:
d 250.JPG
http://www.freewayblogger.com/images_index/rfaile
Yes, Egypt is on the list. It receives more US military aid than any country on Earth except Israel.
Don't forget Uzbekistan; one of the worst.
There are places where the US government makes a token effort to support human rights. The Middle East and central Eurasia are not among those places.
You're a scrooge
And an excellent example of why our rights can so easily be eroded.
Our rights? Well it does affect the rest of us too, because it leads to more polluted air, greater strain on our shared power grid, and a consumer demand that will contribute to more of the US foreign policy we've been seeing lately. This Christmas display is an SUV of a different color.
I don't think Skavookie was criticizing the idea of putting up lights in general, it's just a matter of the ridiculous excess. The United States already consumes as much electricity as 40 per cent of the world's population, and here's a guy who's turning his house into an energy black hole, on the basis that it's pretty.
I have no control over this man's behavior, but I hope he's paying through the nose for that electricity. He certainly would be, if the Bush administration would quit subsidizing oil, coal, and nuclear, and actually let markets work.
Sanctions have ended and Saddam will not return. That is wonderful. But for the record:
Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money
Of course the Iraqi government was creating cash revenue for itself. The oil-for-food (O.F.F.) program only provided commodities in exchange for oil; it didn't allow the government any access to cash. How well would the US government function without cash? Oil smuggling was the only thing that gave a salary to Iraqi teachers, public healthcare workers, and civil servants. Physicians in particular began receiving salary increases that were proportional to the crumbling of sanctions in 2000. Sure, the regime invested in social services partly to reduce popular discontent; it was self-serving. But that doesn't change the fact that sanctions, not just Saddam, violated Iraqi human rights and were in fact designed to. Bush Sr. thought of this as "Making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people."
The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq
Actually no, they were supposed to appear to allow this on paper, but not in practice. For six years Iraq could sell no oil, which cut off 90 per cent of its foreign revenue at a time when Iraq imported two-thirds of its food. As the UN predicted (Bush Sr. ignored it), this led to massive malnutrition. In 1996 the O.F.F. program began, with a pointless cap on oil exports. Two years later the cap was removed, but the US and Britain tied up $5 billion of humanitarian supplies including many spare parts for the oil industry. The point wasn't to kill Iraqis; that was just an "acceptable" consequence of wrecking Iraqi oil production and undermining its global market influence. This should come as no surprise. Donald Rumsfeld certainly wasn't preaching human rights when he shook hands with Saddam, as Reagan was launching his campaign to support Iraq's unconventional weapons development.
No wonder UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday said the O.F.F. program was "designed to fail". I heard this with my own ears when Halliday spoke in New York; similar things from his successor Hans von Sponeck when he spoke in Milwaukee; and more diplomatically from Sponeck's successor Tun Myat when he spoke in Baghdad.
the facts are pretty simple.
Not really, as I have shown. I'm glad this is behind us, but if the history books are honest, they will slaughter the leaders on both sides.
Hmm, well, here's a defector who worked on the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for 30 years, and says that the nuclear program is ancient history.
I might add that if Donald Rumsfeld didn't like the gassing of the Kurds and the other atrocities, maybe he should have raised the issue after he shook hands with Saddam Hussein during a 1983 meeting, instead of inviting the Butcher of Baghdad to expand his military and business ties with the United States.
Give me one example of a time when Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction without the support of Ronald Reagan (esp. note 33), and I'll reconsider the idea that Iraq is an imminent threat to America.