Someone wants to answer what this kid is asking...

WHY? WHAT DID I DO TO YOU?

I add this in : PIG!!!

WHY?

Fistfuls of Dollars
August 29, 2003
Fistfuls of Dollars
By PAUL KRUGMAN
 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

It's all coming true. Before the war, hawks insisted that Iraq was a
breeding ground for terrorism. It wasn't then, but it is now. Meanwhile,
administration apologists blamed terrorists, not tax cuts, for record budget
deficits. In fact, before the war terrorism-related spending was relatively
small - less than $40 billion in fiscal 2002. But the costs of a "bring 'em
on" foreign policy are now looming large indeed.
The direct military cost of the occupation is $4 billion a month, and
there's no end in sight. But that's only part of the bill.
This week Paul Bremer suddenly admitted that Iraq would need "several tens
of billions" in aid next year. That remark was probably aimed not at the
public but at his masters in Washington; he apparently needed to get their
attention.
It's no mystery why. The Coalition Provisional Authority, which has been
operating partly on seized Iraqi assets, is about to run out of money.
Initial optimism about replenishing the authority's funds with oil revenue
has vanished: even if sabotage and looting subside, the dilapidated state of
the industry means that for several years much of its earnings will have to
be reinvested in repair work.
At a deeper level, the wobbling credibility of the occupation undermines
that occupation's financing. American officials still hope to raise money by
selling off state-owned enterprises to foreign investors, though they have
backed off on proposals to sell power plants and other utilities. But after
the bombing of U.N. headquarters, who will buy? Officials have also floated
the idea of pledging future oil revenues in return for loans, but it's far
from clear whether an occupying power has the right to make such deals, let
alone whether they would be honored by whoever is running Iraq a few years
from now.
So Mr. Bremer was telling his masters that they can no longer fake it: he
needs money, now.
The biggest cost of the Iraq venture, however, may not be Mr. Bremer's
problem; it may not even come in Iraq. Our commitment of large forces there
creates the need for a bigger military, even as it degrades the
effectiveness of our existing forces.
These days it's hard to find a military expert not reporting to Donald
Rumsfeld who thinks we have enough soldiers in Iraq. But to those who say,
"Send in more troops," the answer is, "What troops?"
Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, prophetically warned
that the postwar occupation would require more soldiers than the war itself.
In his farewell address he made a broader point, that if we're going to do
this sort of thing, we need a bigger military: "Beware the 12-division
strategy for a 10-division Army."
The rule of thumb, according to military experts, is that except during
crises, only one brigade in three should be deployed abroad. Yet today 21 of
the Army's 33 combat brigades are deployed overseas, 16 of them in Iraq.
This puts enormous stress on the troops, who find that they have only brief
periods of rest and retraining between the times spent in harm's way. For
example, most of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne that is about to go to Iraq
returned from Afghanistan only six months ago.
So unless we can somehow extricate ourselves from Iraq quickly, or persuade
other countries to bear a lot more of the burden, we need a considerably
bigger military. And that means spending a lot more money.
For now, the administration is in denial. "There will be no retreat,"
President Bush says - Churchillian words, but where are the resources to
back them up?
Mr. Rumsfeld won't admit that we need more troops in Iraq or anywhere else.
We could use help from other countries, but it's doubtful whether the
administration will accept the kind of meaningful power-sharing that might
lead to a new Security Council resolution on Iraq, which might in turn bring
in allied forces.
Still, even the government of a superpower can't simultaneously offer tax
cuts equal to 15 percent of revenue, provide all its retirees with
prescription drugs and single-handedly take on the world's evildoers -
single-handedly because we've alienated our allies. In fact, given the size
of our budget deficit, it's not clear that we can afford to do even one of
these things. Someday, when the grown-ups are back in charge, they'll have
quite a mess to clean up.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Do't you know I blurted out on 18 March to a standing ovation and smiling subjects all over, glued to their Tele' ...

'The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.'

Did you not read the papers who praised me the next day.

Did I not rhyme ...
'let the oil revenues - which people falsely claim we want to seize - be put in a Trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.

And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq - protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the No Fly Zone - has done so remarkably.

And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.

I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in Resolution 1441. That is our legal base.'

Did I not specify ? (OK I hid some facts on causes and sustenance but)...
' accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.

Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on Food Aid.

Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.

Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.'

But remember the main reason why is becuase to protect
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
...

We have historically kille children and innocents so why should we change?
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
OUR WAY OF LIFE
...

> the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.

So everything is reverse now?

Sanctions have been lifted (after even the UHCR proclaiming a staggering 2 million directly killed due to its effect!!!)?
In their entirety? meaning new arms are pouring into Iraq which consumes it to our arms industry driven economy to prosper!

Thier people have no need for WMD ? but they need guns per individuals, Texas style, for daily existence.

Disarm Iraq of WMD? the day you proove that the WMD Kelly inc. supplied to Iraq was not used mostly on Iran as instigated by the pigs I will pay taxes!

The moment the new govt is in place? Oooh clever Alistair ...so cleverly drafted ... the type of governance is not specified .. if it ever will materialise that is ... So clever!

"There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary; or so misunderstood ...

"Ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit and anywhere, any time, ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same. Freedom not tyranny. Democracy not dictatorship. The rule of law not the rule of the secret police."

Tony Blair
July 18, 2003