Each American citizen owes the world one million dollars

In my first edi­tors let­ters (crim­i­nal acts in pol­i­tics) I pre­tended that each Amer­i­can owes the world one mil­lion dol­lars. How come? Just try to count and try to know why bank sys­tems, whole states, stock exchanges, old age funds will soon tum­ble in the empti­ness of space….

Read the article:

Each Amer­i­can cit­i­zen owes the world one mil­lion dollars

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Each American citizen owes the world one million dollars

  1. Charles says:

    For ref­er­ence:

    Rank Coun­try Pub­lic debt
    (% of GDP) Date of Infor­ma­tion
    1 Uruguay 793.40 June 2005 est.
    2 Malawi 208.60 2005 est.
    3 Japan 170.00 2005 est.
    4 Lebanon 170.00 2005 est.
    5 Jamaica 135.00 2005 est.
    6 Nicaragua 130.00 2005 est.
    7 Sey­chelles 129.70 2005 est.
    8 Greece 108.90 2005 est.
    9 Italy 107.30 2005 est.

    10 Zam­bia 104.20 2005 est.
    11 Sin­ga­pore 102.00 2005 est.
    12 Israel 101.00 2005 est.
    13 Sri Lanka 98.50 2005 est.
    14 Bel­gium 93.60 2005 est.
    15 Egypt 93.60 2005 est.
    16 India 82.00 2005 est.
    17 Ghana 80.10 2005 est.
    18 Sudan 79.00 2005 est.
    19 Jor­dan 77.70 2005 est.
    20 Philip­pines 77.40 2005 est.
    21 Viet­nam 75.50 2005 est.
    22 Panama 73.20 2005 est.
    23 Moldova 72.90 2005 est.
    24 Morocco 72.30 2005 est.
    25 Cyprus 72.00 2005 est.
    26 Hon­duras 70.50 2005 est.
    27 Cote d’Ivoire 70.40 2005 est.
    28 Por­tu­gal 69.40 2005 est.
    29 Argentina 69.00 June 2005

    30 Ger­many 68.10 2005 est.
    31 Turkey 67.50 2005 est.

    32 Kenya 67.40 2005 est.
    33 France 66.50 2005 est.
    34 Cameroon 64.80 2005 est.
    35 United States 64.70 2005 est.
    36 Aus­tria 63.30 2005 est.

    37 Uganda 62.80 2005 est.
    38 Hun­gary 60.90 2005 est.
    39 Tunisia 58.70 2005 est.
    40 Costa Rica 56.20 2005 est.
    41 Nether­lands 55.00 2005 est.
    42 Pak­istan 54.30 2005 est.
    43 Switzer­land 53.30 2005 est.
    44 Ser­bia and Mon­tene­gro 53.10 2005 est.
    45 Indone­sia 52.60 2005 est.
    46 Croa­tia 52.10 2005 est.
    47 Bahrain 51.50 2005 est.
    48 Domini­can Repub­lic 51.40 2005 est.
    49 Swe­den 50.30 2005 est.
    50 Brazil 50.20 2005 est.
    51 Spain 48.50 2005 est.

    52 Malaysia 48.30 2005 est.
    53 Poland 47.30 2005 est.
    54 Papua New Guinea 47.10 2005 est.
    55 Sene­gal 46.50 2005 est.
    56 Bangladesh 46.10 2005 est.
    57 El Sal­vador 45.80 2005 est.
    58 Syria 45.00 2005 est.
    59 Ecuador 44.90 2005 est.
    60 Colom­bia 44.20 2005
    61 United King­dom 42.20 2005 est.
    62 Fin­land 42.00 2005 est.

    63 Peru 41.80 2005 est.
    64 Trinidad and Tobago 41.40 2005 est.
    65 Saudi Ara­bia 41.00 2005 est.
    66 Angola 40.90 2005 est.
    67 Namibia 39.60 2005 est.
    68 Mex­ico 39.10 Sep­tem­ber 2005
    69 Uzbek­istan 39.00 2005 est.
    70 Canada 38.70 2004–2005
    71 South Africa 37.70 2005 est.

    72 Mace­do­nia 37.40 2005 est.
    73 Qatar 36.70 2005 est.
    74 Paraguay 36.10 2005 est.
    75 Nor­way 36.00 2005 est.
    76 Thai­land 35.90 2005 est.
    77 Yemen 35.90 2005 est.
    78 Den­mark 35.70 2005 est.
    79 Ice­land 34.00 2005 est.

    80 Tai­wan 33.30 2005 est.
    81 Czech Repub­lic 33.10 2005 est.
    82 Bul­garia 32.40 2005 est.
    83 Venezuela 32.00 2005 est.
    84 Korea, South 30.10 2005 est.
    85 Zim­babwe 30.10 2005 est.
    86 Slove­nia 29.90 2005 est.
    87 Gabon 29.50 2005 est.
    88 China 28.80 2005 est.
    89 Ire­land 27.50 2005 est.

    90 Iran 27.50 2005 est.
    91 Guatemala 26.90 2005 est.
    92 Mau­ri­tius 26.20 2005 est.
    93 Lithua­nia 21.40 2005 est.
    94 New Zealand 21.40 2005 est.
    95 Roma­nia 21.10 2005 est.
    96 Ukraine 18.00 2005 est.
    97 Kuwait 17.60 2005 est.
    98 United Arab Emi­rates 17.50 2005 est.
    99 Slo­va­kia 16.90 2005 est.
    100 Aus­tralia 16.20 2005 est.
    101 Rus­sia 15.60 2005 est.

    102 Alge­ria 14.80 2005 est.
    103 Azer­bai­jan 13.90 2005 est.
    104 Latvia 12.00 2005 est.
    105 Nige­ria 11.20 2005 est.
    106 Kaza­khstan 9.80 2005 est.
    107 Chile 8.10 2005 est.
    108 Libya 8.00 2005 est.
    109 Oman 7.50 2005 est.
    110 Botswana 7.30 2005 est.
    111 Wal­lis and Futuna 5.60 NA
    112 Tan­za­nia 5.00 2005 est.
    113 Esto­nia 3.80 2005 est.
    114 Hong Kong 1.80 2005 est.

  2. Michael says:

    Do you have a link for this Charlie?

  3. Michael says:

    Why the Dol­lar Bub­ble is about to Burst http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/342746.html

    Cur­rently almost all oil buy­ing and sell­ing is in US-dollars through exchanges in Lon­don and New York. It is not acci­den­tal they are both US-owned.

    The Wall Street crash in 1929 sparked off global depres­sion and­World War II. Dur­ing that war the US sup­plied pro­vi­sions and muni­tions to all its allies, refus­ing cur­rency and demand­ing gold pay­ments in exchange.

    By 1945, 80% of the world’s gold was sit­ting in US vaults. The dol­lar became the one undis­puted global reserve cur­rency — it was treated world-wide as ‘safer than gold’. The Bret­ton Woods agree­ment was established.

    The US took full advan­tage over the next decades and printed dol­lars like there was no tomor­row. The US exported many moun­tains of dol­lars, pay­ing for ever-increasing amounts of com­modi­ties, tax cuts for the rich, many wars abroad, mer­ce­nar­ies, spies and politi­cians the world over. You see, this did not affect infla­tion at home! The US got it all for free! Well, maybe for a for­est or two.

    Over sub­se­quent decades the world’s vaults bulged at the seams and­more and more vaults were built, just for US dol­lars. Each year, theUS spends many more dol­lars abroad that at home. Ana­lysts pretty much agree that out­side the US, of the sav­ings, or reserves, of all other coun­tries, in gold and all cur­ren­cies — that a mas­sive 66% of this total wealth is in US dollars!

    In 1971 sev­eral coun­tries simul­taeously tried to sell a small por­tion of their dol­lars to the US for gold. Kras­simir Petrov, (Ph. D. in Eco­nom­ics at Ohio Uni­ver­sity) recently wrote, “The US Gov­ern­ment defaulted on its pay­ment on August 15, 1971. While pop­u­lar spin told the story of ‘sev­er­ing the link between the dol­lar and gold’, in real­ity the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bank­ruptcy by the US Gov­ern­ment.” (1) The 1945 Bret­ton Woods agree­ment was uni­lat­er­ally smashed.

    The dol­lar and US econ­omy were on a precipice resem­bling Ger­many in 1929. The US now had to find a way for the rest of the world to believe and have faith in the paper dol­lar. The solu­tion was in oil, in the petrodol­lar. The US viciously bul­lied first Saudi Ara­bia and then OPEC to sell oil for dol­lars only — it worked, the dol­lar was saved. Now coun­tries had to keep dol­lars to buy much needed oil. And the US could buy oil all over the world, free of charge. What a Hou­dini for the US! Oil replaced gold as the new foun­da­tion to stop the paper dol­lar sinking.

    Since 1971, the US printed even more moun­tains of dol­lars to spend abroad. The trade defecit grew and grew. The US sucked-in much of the world’s prod­ucts for next to noth­ing. More vaults were built.

    Expert, ­Cóilínn Nunan, wrote in 2003, “The dol­lar is the de facto world reserve cur­rency: the US cur­rency accounts for approx­i­mately two thirds of all offi­cial exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all for­eign exchange trans­ac­tions and half of all world exports are denom­i­nated in dol­lars. In addi­tion, all IMF loans are denom­i­nated in dol­lars.” (2)

    Dr Bulent Gukay of Keele Uni­ver­sity recently wrote, “This sys­tem of the US dol­lar act­ing as global reserve cur­rency in oil trade keeps the demand for the dol­lar ‘arti­fi­cially’ high. This enables the US to carry out print­ing dol­lars at the price of next to noth­ing to fund increased mil­i­tary spend­ing and con­sumer spend­ing on imports. There is no the­o­ret­i­cal limit to the amount of dol­lars that can be printed. As long as the US has no seri­ous chal­lengers, and the other states have con­fi­dence in the US dol­lar, the sys­tem func­tions.” (3)

    Until recently, the US-dollar has been safe. How­ever, since 1990 west­ern Europe has been busy grow­ing, swal­low­ing up cen­tral and east­ern Europe. French and Ger­man bosses were jeal­ous of the US ablil­ity to buy goods and peo­ple the world over for noth­ing. They wanted a slice of the free cake too. Fur­ther, they now had the power and estab­lished the euro in late 1999 against mas­sive US-inspired oppo­si­tion across Europe, espe­cially from Britain — paid for in dol­lars of course. But the euro suc­ceeded.
    Only months after the euro-launch, Saddam’s Iraq announced it was switch­ing from sell­ing oil in dol­lars only, to euros only — break­ing the OPEC agree­ment. Iran, Rus­sia, Venezuela, Libya, all began talk­ing openly of switch­ing too — were the flood­gates about to be opened?

    Then aero­planes flew into the twin-towers in Sep­tem­ber 2001. Was this another Hou­dini chance to save the US (petro)dollar and the biggest financial/economic crash in his­tory? War prepa­ra­tions began in the US. But first war-fever had to be cre­ated — and truth was the first casu­alty. Other oil pro­duc­ing coun­tries watched-on. In 2000 Iraq began sell­ing oil in euros. In 2002, Iraq changed all their petro-dollars in their vaults into euros. A few months later, the US began their inva­sion of Iraq.
    The whole world was watch­ing: very few aware that the US was engag­ing in the first oil cur­rency, or petrodol­lar war. After the inva­sion of Iraq in March 2003, remem­ber, the US secured oil areas first. Their first sales in August were, of course, in dol­lars, again. The only gov­ern­ment build­ing in Bagh­dad not bombed was the Oil Min­istry! It does not mat­ter how many peo­ple are mur­dered — for the US, the petrodol­lar must be saved as the only way to buy and sell oil — oth­er­wise the US econ­omy will crash, and much more besides.

    In early 2003, Hugo Chavez, Pres­i­dent of Venezuela talked openly of sell­ing half of its oil in euros (the other half is bought by the US). On 12 April 2003, the US-supported busi­ness lead­ers and some gen­er­als in Venezuela kid­napped Chavez and attempted a coup. The masses rose against this and the Army fol­lowed suit. The coup failed. This was bad for the US.

    In Novem­ber 2000 the euro/dollar was at $0.82 dol­lars, its low­est ever, and still div­ing, but when Iraq started sell­ing oil in euros, the euro dive was halted. In April 2002 senior OPEC reps talked about trad­ing in euros and the euro shot up. In June 2003 the US occu­piers of Iraq switched trad­ing back to dol­lars and the euro fell against the dol­lar again. In August 2003 Iran starts to sell oil in euros to some Euro­pean coun­tries and the euro rises sharply. In the win­ter of 2003–4 Russ­ian and OPEC politi­cians talked seri­ously of switch­ing oil/gas sales to the euro and the euro rose. In Feb­ru­ary 2004 OPEC met and made no deci­sion to turn to the euro — and yes, the euro fell against the dol­lar. In June 2004 Iran announced it would build an oil bourse to rival Lon­don and New York, and again, the euro rose. The euro stands at $1.27 and has been climb­ing of late. See the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank his­tory of the euro/dollar: http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html#1999

    But mat­ters this month became far, far worse for the US dol­lar. On 5th May Iran reg­is­tered its own Oil Bourse, the IOB. Not only are they now sell­ing oil in euros from abroad — they have estab­lished an actual Oil Bourse, a global trad­ing cen­tre for all coun­tries to buy and sell their oil!

    In Chavez’s recent visit to Lon­don he talked openly about sup­port­ing the Iran­ian Oil Bourse, and sell­ing oil in euros. When asked in Lon­don about the new arms embargo imposed by the US against Venezuela, Chavez prophet­i­cally dis­missed the US as “a paper tiger”.

    Cur­rently, almost all the world’s oil is sold on either the NYMEX, New York Mer­can­tile Exchange, or the IPE, London’s Inter­na­tional Petro­leum Exchange. Both are owned by US cit­i­zens and both sell and buy only in US dol­lars. The suc­cess of the Iran Oil Bourse makes sense to Europe, which buys 70% of Iran’s oil. It makes sense for Rus­sia, which sells 66% of its oil to Europe. But worse for the US, China and India have already stated they are very inter­ested in the new Iran­ian Oil Bourse. If there is a tactical-nuclear strike on — deja-vu — ‘weapons of mass destruc­tion’ in Iran, who would bet against a cer­tain Oil Exchange and more, being bombed too?

    And worse for Bush. It makes sense for Europe, China, India and Japan — as well as all the other coun­tries men­tioned above — to buy and sell oil in Euro’s. They will cer­tainly have to stock-up on euros now, and they will sell dol­lars to do so. The euro is far more sta­ble than the debt-ridden dol­lar. The IMF has recently high­lighted US eco­nomic dif­fi­cul­ties and the trade deficit stran­gling the US — there is no way out.

    The prob­lem for so many coun­tries now is, how to get rid of their vaults full of dol­lars, before it crashes? And the US has bul­lied so many coun­tries for so many decades around the world, that many will see a chance to kick the bully back. The US can­not accept even 5% of the world’s dol­lars — it would crash the US econ­omy drag­ging much of the world with it, espe­cially Britain.

    To sur­vive, as the Scot­tish Social­ist Voice arti­cle stated, “the US, needs to gen­er­ate a trade sur­plus to get out of this one. Prob­lem is it can’t.” This is spot on. To do that they must force US work­ers into near slav­ery, to get paid less than Chi­nese or Indian work­ers. We all know that this will not happen.

    What will hap­pen in the US? Chaos for sure. Maybe a work­ers rev­o­lu­tion, but look­ing at the sit­u­a­tion as it is now, it is more likely to be a re-run of Ger­many post-1929, and some form of extreme-right mass move­ment will emerge.

    Does Europe and China/Asia have the eco­nomic inde­pen­dence and strength to stop the whole world’s economies col­laps­ing with the US? Their vaults are full to the brim with dollars.

    The US has to find a way to pay for its dollar-imperialist exploita­tion of the world since 1945. Some­how, even­tu­ally, it has to account for every dol­lar in every vault in the world.

    Bomb­ing Iran could back­fire tremen­dously. It would bring Iran openly into the war in Iraq, behind the Shi­ite major­ity. The US can­not cope even now with the much smaller Iraqi insur­gency. Per­haps the US will feed into the Sunni v Shi­ite con­flict and turn it into a wider Middle-East civil-war. How­ever, this is so dan­ger­ous for global oil sup­plies. Fur­ther, they know that this would be tem­po­rary, as some coun­try some­where else, will estab­lish a euro-oil-exchange. Per­haps in Brussels.

    There is one ‘solu­tion’ — scrap the dol­lar and print a whole new cur­rency for the US. This will destroy 66% of the rest of the world’s savings/reserves in one swoop. Imag­ine the impli­ca­tions? Such are the des­per­ate things now swim­ming around heads in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon.

    Another is to do as Ger­many did, just before invad­ing Poland in 1938. The Nazis filmed a mock Pol­ish Army attack on Ger­many, to win hearts and minds at home. But again, this is a fin­ger in the dam. So, how is the US going to escape this time? The only global arena of total supe­ri­or­ity left is mil­i­tary. Who knows what hor­rors lie ahead. A new world war is one tool by which the US could dis­ci­pline its ‘allies’ into keep­ing the dol­lar in their vaults.

    The task of social­ists today is to explain to as many as pos­si­ble, espe­cially our class, that the com­ing cri­sis belongs purely to cap­i­tal­ism and (dol­lar) impe­ri­al­ism. Not peo­ple of other cul­tures, not Islam, not the axis of evil or their so-called WMDs. Their sys­tem alone is to blame.

    The new Iran­ian Oil Bourse, the IOB, is sit­u­ated in a new build­ing on the free-trade-zone island of Kish, in the Per­sian Gulf. It’s com­put­ers and soft­ware are all set to go. The IOB was sup­posed to be up and run­ning last March, but many pres­sures forced a post­pone­ment. Where the pres­sure came from is obvi­ous. It was inter­na­tion­ally reg­is­tered on 5th May and sup­posed to open mid-May, but its open­ing was put off, some say­ing the oil-mafia was involved, along with much inter­na­tional pres­sure. Just google ‘pertroeuro’, and the story lies before you.

    From now on, any­one in the know will wake up every morn­ing and, even before cof­fee, will check out the lat­est exchange rate between the euro and dollar.

    (1) The Pro­posed Iran­ian Oil Bourse (Kras­simir Petrov, Jan 2006) http://www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm

    (2) Oil, Cur­rency and the War on Iraq (Cóilínn Nunan, Scot­land, Dec 2003) http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

    (3) Petrodol­lar Became the Essen­tial Basis for the US Eco­nomic Hege­money in the 1970s. (Bulent Gokay, Keele Uni­ver­sity, May 2006) http://english.pravda.ru/topic/petrodollar-138/

  4. LadyBird says:

    Michael don’t be sur­prised that Charles link is from the CIA

    Here it is

  5. LadyBird says:

    bet­ter trusted Rank Coun­try Pub­lic debt, not con­nected to the CIA, with dif­fer­ent data

    Source

    104 Afghanistan NA
    104 Akrotiri NA
    104 Alba­nia NA
    71 Alge­ria 37.40
    104 Amer­i­can Samoa NA
    104 Andorra NA
    104 Angola NA
    104 Anguilla NA
    104 Antarc­tica NA
    104 Antigua and Bar­buda NA
    104 Arc­tic Ocean NA
    7 Argentina 118.00
    104 Arme­nia NA
    104 Aruba NA
    104 Ash­more and Cartier Islands NA
    104 Atlantic Ocean NA
    94 Aus­tralia 17.40
    33 Aus­tria 64.20
    92 Azer­bai­jan 18.90
    104 Bahamas, The NA
    34 Bahrain 63.80
    104 Baker Island NA
    63 Bangladesh 43.00
    104 Bar­ba­dos NA
    104 Bas­sas da India NA
    104 Belarus NA
    14 Bel­gium 96.20
    104 Belize NA
    104 Benin NA
    104 Bermuda NA
    104 Bhutan NA
    104 Bolivia NA
    104 Bosnia and Herze­gov­ina NA
    100 Botswana 8.60
    104 Bou­vet Island NA
    50 Brazil 52.00
    104 British Indian Ocean Ter­ri­tory NA
    104 British Vir­gin Islands NA
    104 Brunei NA
    65 Bul­garia 41.90
    104 Burk­ina Faso NA
    104 Burma NA
    104 Burundi NA
    104 Cam­bo­dia NA
    28 Cameroon 69.10
    104 Canada NA
    104 Cape Verde NA
    104 Cay­man Islands NA
    104 Cen­tral African Repub­lic NA
    104 Chad NA
    96 Chile 12.80
    78 China 31.40
    104 Christ­mas Island NA
    104 Clip­per­ton Island NA
    104 Cocos (Keel­ing) Islands NA
    51 Colom­bia 51.80
    104 Comoros NA
    104 Congo, Demo­c­ra­tic Repub­lic of the NA
    104 Congo, Repub­lic of the NA
    104 Cook Islands NA
    104 Coral Sea Islands NA
    42 Costa Rica 58.00
    19 Cote d’Ivoire 74.80
    66 Croa­tia 41.70
    104 Cuba NA
    104 Cyprus NA
    104 Cyprus — Turk­ish area NA
    73 Czech Repub­lic 33.50
    64 Den­mark 42.50
    104 Dheke­lia NA
    104 Dji­bouti NA
    104 Dominica NA
    37 Domini­can Repub­lic 61.10
    104 East Timor NA
    54 Ecuador 49.20
    12 Egypt 102.70
    66 El Sal­vador 41.70
    104 Equa­to­r­ial Guinea NA
    104 Eritrea NA
    101 Esto­nia 5.40
    104 Ethiopia NA
    104 Europa Island NA
    104 Euro­pean Union NA
    104 Falk­land Islands (Islas Malv­inas) NA
    104 Faroe Islands NA
    104 Fiji NA
    56 Fin­land 46.80
    29 France 67.70
    104 French Guiana NA
    104 French Poly­ne­sia NA
    104 French South­ern and Antarc­tic Lands NA
    81 Gabon 29.30
    104 Gam­bia, The NA
    104 Gaza Strip NA
    104 Geor­gia NA
    31 Ger­many 65.80
    104 Ghana NA
    104 Gibral­tar NA
    104 Glo­rioso Islands NA
    8 Greece 112.00
    104 Green­land NA
    104 Grenada NA
    104 Guade­loupe NA
    104 Guam NA
    76 Guatemala 32.00
    104 Guernsey NA
    104 Guinea NA
    104 Guinea-Bissau NA
    104 Guyana NA
    104 Haiti NA
    104 Heard Island and McDon­ald Islands NA
    104 Holy See (Vat­i­can City) NA
    22 Hon­duras 74.10
    103 Hong Kong 2.10
    104 How­land Island NA
    41 Hun­gary 58.30
    72 Ice­land 35.90
    38 India 59.70
    104 Indian Ocean NA
    44 Indone­sia 56.20
    84 Iran 27.00
    104 Iraq NA
    79 Ire­land 31.20
    10 Israel 104.50
    9 Italy 105.60
    4 Jamaica 146.10
    104 Jan Mayen NA
    3 Japan 164.30
    104 Jarvis Island NA
    104 Jer­sey NA
    104 John­ston Atoll NA
    15 Jor­dan 85.80
    104 Juan de Nova Island NA
    95 Kaza­khstan 13.70
    20 Kenya 74.30
    104 King­man Reef NA
    104 Kiri­bati NA
    104 Korea, North NA
    90 Korea, South 21.30
    80 Kuwait 29.60
    104 Kyr­gyzs­tan NA
    104 Laos NA
    97 Latvia 11.80
    2 Lebanon 177.90
    104 Lesotho NA
    104 Liberia NA
    99 Libya 8.80
    104 Liecht­en­stein NA
    85 Lithua­nia 25.20
    104 Lux­em­bourg NA
    104 Macau NA
    91 Mace­do­nia 20.00
    104 Mada­gas­car NA
    1 Malawi 228.30
    60 Malaysia 45.40
    104 Mal­dives NA
    104 Mali NA
    104 Malta NA
    104 Man, Isle of NA
    104 Mar­shall Islands NA
    104 Mar­tinique NA
    104 Mau­ri­ta­nia NA
    82 Mau­ri­tius 29.20
    104 May­otte NA
    88 Mex­ico 23.50
    104 Microne­sia, Fed­er­ated States of NA
    104 Mid­way Islands NA
    35 Moldova 63.40
    104 Monaco NA
    104 Mon­go­lia NA
    104 Montser­rat NA
    25 Morocco 70.20
    104 Mozam­bique NA
    70 Namibia 38.50
    104 Nauru NA
    104 Navassa Island NA
    104 Nepal NA
    45 Nether­lands 55.80
    104 Nether­lands Antilles NA
    104 New Cale­do­nia NA
    89 New Zealand 22.10
    26 Nicaragua 69.50
    104 Niger NA
    91 Nige­ria 20.00
    104 Niue NA
    104 Nor­folk Island NA
    104 North­ern Mar­i­ana Islands NA
    74 Nor­way 33.10
    98 Oman 10.30
    104 Pacific Ocean NA
    24 Pak­istan 71.40
    104 Palau NA
    104 Palmyra Atoll NA
    27 Panama 69.20
    39 Papua New Guinea 59.30
    104 Para­cel Islands NA
    69 Paraguay 39.20
    61 Peru 44.10
    21 Philip­pines 74.20
    104 Pit­cairn Islands NA
    53 Poland 49.90
    36 Por­tu­gal 61.50
    104 Puerto Rico NA
    104 Qatar NA
    104 Reunion NA
    87 Roma­nia 23.60
    83 Rus­sia 28.20
    104 Rwanda NA
    104 Saint Helena NA
    104 Saint Kitts and Nevis NA
    104 Saint Lucia NA
    104 Saint Pierre and Miquelon NA
    104 Saint Vin­cent and the Grenadines NA
    104 Samoa NA
    104 San Marino NA
    104 Sao Tome and Principe NA
    18 Saudi Ara­bia 75.00
    46 Sene­gal 55.20
    16 Ser­bia and Mon­tene­gro 80.00
    6 Sey­chelles 122.80
    104 Sierra Leone NA
    13 Sin­ga­pore 102.50
    57 Slo­va­kia 46.60
    77 Slove­nia 31.50
    104 Solomon Islands NA
    104 Soma­lia NA
    59 South Africa 45.90
    104 South Geor­gia and the South Sand­wich Islands NA
    104 South­ern Ocean NA
    48 Spain 53.20
    104 Spratly Islands NA
    11 Sri Lanka 104.30
    17 Sudan 79.70
    104 Suri­name NA
    104 Sval­bard NA
    104 Swazi­land NA
    52 Swe­den 51.60
    43 Switzer­land 57.20
    76 Syria 32.00
    75 Tai­wan 32.40
    104 Tajik­istan NA
    102 Tan­za­nia 5.00
    55 Thai­land 47.60
    104 Togo NA
    104 Toke­lau NA
    104 Tonga NA
    47 Trinidad and Tobago 54.40
    104 Tromelin Island NA
    40 Tunisia 59.20
    20 Turkey 74.30
    104 Turk­menistan NA
    104 Turks and Caicos Islands NA
    104 Tuvalu NA
    23 Uganda 73.90
    86 Ukraine 24.70
    93 United Arab Emi­rates 17.60
    68 United King­dom 39.60
    32 United States 65.00
    104 Uruguay NA
    67 Uzbek­istan 41.50
    104 Van­u­atu NA
    62 Venezuela 43.10
    30 Viet­nam 65.90
    104 Vir­gin Islands NA
    104 Wake Island NA
    104 Wal­lis and Futuna NA
    104 West Bank NA
    104 West­ern Sahara NA
    104 World NA
    58 Yemen 46.40
    5 Zam­bia 127.50
    49 Zim­babwe 52.30

  6. LadyBird says:

    Last USA dept

    8,382,815, 188, 196, 52

    Source

  7. Charles says:

    Nice job LB,

    From the point of view of the arti­cles claims, your num­bers aren’t really so dif­fer­ent. The point is, while the US has a high pub­lic debt, it is not that spe­cial com­pared to other coun­tries not tar­geted by the author.

    1 Malawi 228.3
    2 Lebanon 177.9
    3 Japan 164.3
    4 Jamaica 146.1
    5 Zam­bia 127.5
    6 Sey­chelles 122.8
    7 Argentina 118
    8 Greece 112
    9 Italy 105.6

    10 Israel 104.5
    11 Sri Lanka 104.3
    12 Egypt 102.7
    13 Sin­ga­pore 102.5
    14 Bel­gium 96.2
    15 Jor­dan 85.8
    16 Ser­bia and Mon­tene­gro 80
    17 Sudan 79.7
    18 Saudi Ara­bia 75
    19 Cote d’Ivoire 74.8
    20 Kenya 74.3
    20 Turkey 74.3
    21 Philip­pines 74.2
    22 Hon­duras 74.1
    23 Uganda 73.9
    24 Pak­istan 71.4
    25 Morocco 70.2
    26 Nicaragua 69.5
    27 Panama 69.2
    28 Cameroon 69.1
    29 France 67.7
    30 Viet­nam 65.9
    31 Ger­many 65.8
    32 United States 65
    33 Aus­tria 64.2

    34 Bahrain 63.8
    35 Moldova 63.4
    36 Por­tu­gal 61.5
    37 Domini­can Repub­lic 61.1
    38 India 59.7
    39 Papua New Guinea 59.3
    40 Tunisia 59.2
    41 Hun­gary 58.3
    42 Costa Rica 58
    43 Switzer­land 57.2
    44 Indone­sia 56.2
    45 Nether­lands 55.8
    46 Sene­gal 55.2
    47 Trinidad and Tobago 54.4
    48 Spain 53.2
    49 Zim­babwe 52.3
    50 Brazil 52
    51 Colom­bia 51.8
    52 Swe­den 51.6
    53 Poland 49.9

    54 Ecuador 49.2
    55 Thai­land 47.6
    56 Fin­land 46.8
    57 Slo­va­kia 46.6
    58 Yemen 46.4
    59 South Africa 45.9
    60 Malaysia 45.4
    61 Peru 44.1
    62 Venezuela 43.1
    63 Bangladesh 43
    64 Den­mark 42.5
    65 Bul­garia 41.9
    66 Croa­tia 41.7
    66 El Sal­vador 41.7
    67 Uzbek­istan 41.5
    68 United King­dom 39.6
    69 Paraguay 39.2
    70 Namibia 38.5
    71 Alge­ria 37.4
    72 Ice­land 35.9
    73 Czech Repub­lic 33.5
    74 Nor­way 33.1
    75 Tai­wan 32.4
    76 Guatemala 32
    76 Syria 32
    77 Slove­nia 31.5
    78 China 31.4
    79 Ire­land 31.2

    80 Kuwait 29.6
    81 Gabon 29.3
    82 Mau­ri­tius 29.2
    83 Rus­sia 28.2
    84 Iran 27
    85 Lithua­nia 25.2
    86 Ukraine 24.7
    87 Roma­nia 23.6
    88 Mex­ico 23.5
    89 New Zealand 22.1
    90 Korea, South 21.3

    91 Mace­do­nia 20
    91 Nige­ria 20
    92 Azer­bai­jan 18.9
    93 United Arab Emi­rates 17.6
    94 Aus­tralia 17.4
    95 Kaza­khstan 13.7
    96 Chile 12.8
    97 Latvia 11.8
    98 Oman 10.3
    99 Libya 8.8
    100 Botswana 8.6
    101 Esto­nia 5.4
    102 Tan­za­nia 5
    103 Hong Kong 2.1

  8. Charles says:

    bet­ter trusted Rank Coun­try Pub­lic debt, not con­nected to the CIA, with dif­fer­ent data

    Uh oh — check out the dis­claimer at the bot­tom of LB’s link.

    This page of Pub­lic debt rank­ing of coun­tries is based on fig­ures from the 2005 CIA world fact­book. As a rule the Pub­lic debt data used to rank the coun­tries is as of Jan­u­ary 2005.

  9. LadyBird says:

    Sorry didn’t read the disclaimer…

    It’s not trusted then

  10. Charles says:

    coun­try debt gdp debt/gdp
    World 38,540,000,000,000 60,710,000,000,000 0.634821282
    US 8,837,000,000,000 12,360,000,000,000 0.714967638
    EU 22,540,962,100,000 12,180,000,000,000 1.850653703

    These num­bers look odd. I think there are too many zeros some­where. I think the UK debt amount is too high. Some­one else run the num­bers and com­pare US and EU pub­lic debt/gdp.

    Here is another source putting EU pub­lic debt on par with US.

  11. Charles says:

    per­ro­quet,

    What will hap­pen in the US? Chaos for sure. Maybe a work­ers revolution,

    You can only hope…

  12. Michael says:

    The Debt To the Penny
    Cur­rent Amount

    06/14/2006 $8,375,365,051,008
    http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

    Around 290 mil­lion yan­quis I think, makes $28,880.57 for each and every one of them.

    US GDP $ 12,360,000,000,000 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

    US pub­lic debt as a pro­por­tion of GDP equals 67.76%

  13. rightwing extremist says:

    Michael don’t be sur­prised that Charles link is from the CIA

    you guys didnt know charles is with the CIA? its his job to watch sub­ver­sive blogs and to help stop the flow of infor­ma­tion. he has already taken action as a mat­ter of fact. a chris­t­ian fun­da­men­tal­ist sect in dem­mark has decap­i­tated KB. it was all a setup.……

  14. rightwing extremist says:

    michael’s arti­cle read”

    Another is to do as Ger­many did, just before invad­ing Poland in 1938. The Nazis filmed a mock Pol­ish Army attack on Ger­many, to win hearts and minds at home.”

    uh no…by not appear­ing as the aggres­sor it was hoped that war with britain and france could be avoided. hav­ing seized both czechoslavakia and aus­tria with­out a fight the nazis hoped to do the same with poland. they also signed an agree­ment with the sovi­ets to fore­stall inter­ven­tion from the east. few ger­mans wanted war in 1939 and the nazi press wasnt going to change that.

    this had much less to do with domes­tic sen­ti­ment than this guy lets on.…why did you have this high­lighted michael?

    and why is this bol­she­vik stooge so wor­ried about world wars? the social­ists did noth­ing to stop the 1st and 2nd.

  15. Michael says:

    Right Wing extrem­ists writes.“having seized both czechoslavakia and aus­tria with­out a fight the nazis hoped to do the same with poland. they also signed an agree­ment with the sovi­ets to fore­stall inter­ven­tion from the east. few ger­mans wanted war in 1939 and the nazi press wasnt going to change that. ”

    You seem to know lit­tle about his­tory. Britain, and France I believe, made clear to Ger­many that war would be declared if Ger­many attacked Poland, that’s why the UK entered the war.
    The Nazis played the same cards as the Amer­i­cans have, repeat lies over and over again and even­tu­ally a large pro­por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion start to believe them.

  16. Charles says:

    repeat lies over and over again and even­tu­ally a large pro­por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion start to believe them.

    Per­ro­quet read THAT chap­ter sev­eral times.

    It is obvi­ous he is a left wing sub­ver­sive whose only goal is to pro­mote the social­ist agenda by attack­ing the US. The topic doesn’t even mat­ter. The goal remains the same. He repeats lies over and over and his defense is to repeat the lies over and over.

  17. Michael says:

    Another exam­ple Char­lie? The US Government/Army led by the mass mur­derer Bush are renowned for lying. Many times in the first instance they tried to deny atroc­i­ties only to be forced to confess.

  18. Charles says:

    The debt to the penny.

    So what is the EU num­ber? Is it sig­nif­i­cantly dif­fer­ent? Perroquet?

    I’m all for low­er­ing the debt bit by bit within reason.

    I see no point in harp­ing on the US as some spe­cial demon when there are plenty of other coun­tries in a sim­i­lar boat. Why are they com­pletely ignored?

    Japan, Greece, Bel­gium, Italy, France, and Ger­many have higher debt rations. Aus­tria and Por­tu­gal are right up there too.

    The point is, peo­ple with insin­cere motives will par­rot nasty pro­pa­ganda to who­ever is dumb enough to listen.

  19. Charles says:

    Another exam­ple Char­lie? The US Government/Army led by the mass mur­derer Bush are renowned for lying. Many times in the first instance they tried to deny atroc­i­ties only to be forced to confess.

    Per­ro­quet,

    I debunked each and every one of your obtuse claims already. Point by point. You were inca­pable of respond­ing other than to repeat the same claim that ‘Bush lied.’ Your inabil­ity to respond makes it quite clear that there is no viable response. Your absurd claims fall apart as soon as any­one applies even the most basic analysis.

    But we have all seen your strategy:

    repeat lies over and over again and even­tu­ally a large pro­por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion start to believe them.

  20. Michael says:

    Char­lie I lost inter­est in your “loony tunes” ver­sion of real­ity some time ago. You would be will­ing to deny the Pope is a Catholic if you thought it would favour your aims.
    In the real world no one trusts the US Gov­ern­ment any more and with good rea­son. Even Colin Pow­ell has con­fessed that he now feels embar­rassed by the lies he told in the UN try­ing to get some sort of legal­ity of the inva­sion of Iraq.

  21. rightwing extremist says:

    Mike said:

    You seem to know lit­tle about his­tory. Britain, and France I believe, made clear to Ger­many that war would be declared if Ger­many attacked Poland, that’s why the UK entered the war.”

    haha. yes thats what they said. hitler had rea­son to believe they were full of shit. btw, they then fought the “phony war” and sat on their asses for months. read a book instead of your bol­she­vik rags mike. it might help you learn.

    The Nazis played the same cards as the Amer­i­cans have, repeat lies over and over again and even­tu­ally a large pro­por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion start to believe them. ”

    are you going to actu­ally come up with a real aru­ment or just keep repeat­ing bush=nazis with no evidence?

  22. Charles says:

    You seem to know lit­tle about his­tory. Britain, and France I believe, made clear to Ger­many that war would be declared if Ger­many attacked Poland, that’s why the UK entered the war.

    Per­ro­quet is the one who should study up on his his­tory a bit better.

    Hitler had already seen how France/UK had given up Czecho­slo­va­kia with­out a fight. His bluff and blus­ter had worked every time since reoc­cu­py­ing the Ruhr. He knew war was com­ing (because he was start­ing it), and he was ready for it, but he cer­tainly hoped the UK/France would again shy away from open con­flict. He did not want to fight in the west. His pri­mary strate­gic goals were in the east.

  23. Michael says:

    Japan, Greece, Bel­gium, Italy, France, and Ger­many have higher debt rations.

    “Rations” LOL. Nev­er­the­less the CIA fig­ures you gave were not totals of pub­lic debt but the ratio of pub­lic debt to GDP.
    But that’s not really the insur­mount­able prob­lem that the USA is faced with, that’s due to the trade deficit and falling con­fi­dence in the US$, the EU by the way has a surplus.

  24. Michael says:

    Hitler had already seen how France/UK had given up Czecho­slo­va­kia with­out a fight.

    I think Hitler knew that the British and the French were seri­ous about what the con­se­quences would be when he invaded Poland. He could how­ever rest assured that the USA would stand on the side­lines shak­ing with fear about get­ting involved in a real war.

  25. rightwing extremist says:

    charles said:

    Hitler had already seen how France/UK had given up Czecho­slo­va­kia with­out a fight. His bluff and blus­ter had worked every time since reoc­cu­py­ing the Ruhr. He knew war was com­ing (because he was start­ing it), and he was ready for it, but he cer­tainly hoped the UK/France would again shy away from open con­flict. He did not want to fight in the west. His pri­mary strate­gic goals were in the east.”

    exactly. he was hop­ing to move against poland while the allies sat on their hands…AGAIN

  26. Charles says:

    Even Colin Pow­ell has con­fessed that he now feels embar­rassed by the lies he told in the UN try­ing to get some sort of legal­ity of the inva­sion of Iraq.

    I’m try­ing to under­stand if per­ro­quet is try­ing to push the first ver­sion — i.e. that Pow­ell admit­ted to lying and then felt bad about it, or the sec­ond ver­sion that came out after the first was trashed — i.e. vague lan­guage refer­ring to the first ver­sion and vag­u­ley mak­ing the same claim, with­out actu­ally mak­ing it. I think he is still push­ing the first. He didn’t get the memo.

    The truth is, Colin Pow­ell was hop­ping mad and dis­gusted with the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity that pro­vided him with the evi­dence that formed the basis of his tes­ti­mony. He was upset because he knows that he will for­ever be the one asso­ci­ated with mak­ing the claims most of which turned out to be incor­rect. As a sol­dier, his honor is an impor­tant thing and this event will be remem­bered as a blotch upon his oth­er­wise excel­lent record.

    He wasn’t upset about lying because he didn’t lie. He was upset about the fact that his claims were based on faulty intelligence.

  27. rightwing extremist says:

    ” think Hitler knew that the British and the French were seri­ous about what the con­se­quences would be when he invaded Poland. He could how­ever rest assured that the USA would stand on the side­lines shak­ing with fear about get­ting involved in a real war. ”

    wow what a dis­play of ignorance.….the french and brits fought the “phony war” and did noth­ing until ger­many invaded bel­guim and france.

    sorry mike…the amer­i­can left (like the euro left before them) did not want the US to enter the war.

  28. Michael says:

    But as I pointed out a few days ago, in the case of Hus­sein Kamel’s tes­ti­mony it wasn’t a case of faulty intel­li­gence at all, it was a case of his tes­ti­mony being delib­er­ately fab­ri­cated. i.e. where he said that all of Iraq’s WMD had been destroyed on or before 1995 it was claimed that he said the WMD still existed.
    It’s pos­si­ble of course with Pow­ell that he was not a party to the sub­terfuge in which case he must just be stu­pid, he could eas­ily have
    checked for himself.

  29. Michael says:

    sorry mike…the amer­i­can left (like the euro left before them) did not want the US to enter the war.

    I don’t think you can blame the Amer­i­can left even if there was such a thing. It’s another case of the Amer­i­can right not being inter­ested in war unless there’s a few bucks in it for them. Didn’t stop Bush’s grand­daddy trad­ing with the enemy though. :)

  30. rightwing extremist says:

    mike said

    I don’t think you can blame the Amer­i­can left even if there was such a thing. It’s another case of the Amer­i­can right not being inter­ested in war unless there’s a few bucks in it for them. Didn’t stop Bush’s grand­daddy trad­ing with the enemy though.”

    ill take that as an admis­sion that you were wrong.…btw those smi­leys are really really gay. seri­ously mike.…really gay

  31. Michael says:

    ill take that as an admis­sion that you were wrong….btw those smi­leys are really really gay. seri­ously mike….really gay.

    In that case you are going to be dis­ap­pointed. Try Charlie. :)

  32. Charles says:

    But as I pointed out a few days ago, in the case of Hus­sein Kamel’s tes­ti­mony it wasn’t a case of faulty intel­li­gence at all, it was a case of his tes­ti­mony being delib­er­ately fab­ri­cated. i.e. where he said that all of Iraq’s WMD had been destroyed on or before 1995 it was claimed that he said the WMD still existed.
    It’s pos­si­ble of course with Pow­ell that he was not a party to the sub­terfuge in which case he must just be stu­pid, he could eas­ily have checked for himself.

    As I pointed out to you rather exhaus­tively, the only thing ‘proven’ by Kamal’s tes­ti­mony was that Sad­dam had a strat­egy of delib­er­ate non-compliance. Kamal ‘alleged’ that cer­tain bioweapons pro­grams had not been dis­closed. This was ‘proven’ when Sad­dam turned over the docs in his most recent ‘all inclu­sive’ report. I think he made about 10 of those. Kamal alleged that Sad­dam may have destroyed all? or most? of his weapons in early 90’s. But Sad­dam never proved this.

    Uni­lat­eral destruc­tion was a vio­la­tion of the cease fire agree­ment anyway.

    So you are wrong again perroquet.

    Kamal’s var­i­ous tes­ti­monies proved only that Sad­dam had delib­er­ate strat­egy of deception.

    That decep­tion in itself is a vio­la­tion ofthe cease fire agreeement.

  33. Charles says:

    One more impor­tant thing that Kamal ‘proved’:

    That even in the 5th year of inspec­tions, the inspec­tors had no frig­gin clue about Saddam’s bio weapons programs.

    That proved con­clu­sively that inspec­tions could NEVER be relied upon to find things that weren’t dis­closed to them. Hence, an enor­mous amount of value was placed on whether or not Sad­dam was con­sid­ered as act­ing in good faith or not. The only thing that could have saved Sad­dam would have been an absolute and fun­da­men­tal turn­around in his behav­ior. Total open­ness. Total com­pli­ance. Overt good faith efforts to prove his good intentions.

    He chose the opposite.

  34. Michael says:

    It’s “loony tunes stuff” Charlie

    In the tran­script of the inter­view, Kamel states categorically:

    I ordered destruc­tion of all chem­i­cal weapons. All weapons — bio­log­i­cal, chem­i­cal, mis­sile, nuclear were destroyed“
    (p. 13).

    Kamel specif­i­cally dis­cussed the sig­nif­i­cance of anthrax, which he por­trayed as the “main focus” of the bio­log­i­cal pro­gramme (pp.7–8). Smi­dovich asked Kamel: “were weapons and agents destroyed?”

    Kamel replied: “noth­ing remained”.

    He con­firmed that destruc­tion took place “after vis­its of inspec­tion teams. You have impor­tant role in Iraq with this. You should not under­es­ti­mate your­self. You are very effec­tive in Iraq.” (p.7)

    Kamel added: “I made the deci­sion to dis­close every­thing so that Iraq could return to nor­mal.” (p.8)

    Fur­ther­more, Kamel describes the elim­i­na­tion of pro­hib­ited mis­siles: “not a sin­gle mis­sile left but they had blue­prints and molds for pro­duc­tion. All mis­siles were destroyed.” (p.8)

    On VX, Kamel claimed: “they put it in bombs dur­ing last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the pro­gramme was ter­mi­nated.” (p.12).

    Ekeus asked Kamel: “did you restart VX pro­duc­tion after the Iran-Iraq war?”

    Kamel replied: “we changed the fac­tory into pes­ti­cide pro­duc­tion. Part of the estab­lish­ment started to pro­duce med­i­cine […] We gave insturctions [sic] not to pro­duce chem­i­cal weapons.” (p.13).

    Despite the sig­nif­i­cance of these claims, it was not known that Kamel made this asser­tion until Feb­ru­ary 2003. Kamel’s claim was first car­ried on 24 Feb­ru­ary 2003 by Newsweek, who reported that Kamel told U.N. inspec­tors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stock­pile of chem­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal weapons and banned mis­siles, as Iraq claims (Newsweek, 3/3/03). Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their exis­tence from inspec­tors, in the hopes of some­day resum­ing pro­duc­tion after inspec­tions had fin­ished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported.

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845

    Kamel’s defec­tion has been cited repeat­edly by George W. Bush and lead­ing admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials as evi­dence that 1) Iraq has not dis­armed; 2) inspec­tions can­not dis­arm it; and 3) defec­tors such as Kamel are the most reli­able source of infor­ma­tion on Iraq’s weapons.

    Bush declared in an Octo­ber 7, 2002 speech: “In 1995, after sev­eral years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s mil­i­tary indus­tries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit :) that it had pro­duced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly bio­log­i­cal agents. The inspec­tors, how­ever, con­cluded that Iraq had likely pro­duced two to four times that amount. This is a mas­sive stock­pile of bio­log­i­cal weapons that has never been accounted for, and capa­ble of killing millions.”

    Sec­re­tary of State Colin Powell’s Feb­ru­ary 5 pre­sen­ta­tion to the U.N. Secu­rity Coun­cil claimed: “It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had pro­duced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A sin­gle drop of VX on the skin will kill in min­utes. Four tons. The admis­sion only came out after inspec­tors col­lected doc­u­men­ta­tion as a result of the defec­tion of Hus­sein Kamel, Sad­dam Hussein’s late son-in-law.”

    In a speech last August (8/27/02), Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney said Kamel’s story “should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defec­tions than we learned from the inspec­tion regime itself.”

    Deputy National Secu­rity Advi­sor Stephen Hadley recently wrote in the Chicago Tri­bune (2/16/03) that “because of infor­ma­tion pro­vided by Iraqi defec­tor and for­mer head of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruc­tion pro­grams, Lt. Gen. Hus­sein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation commitments.”

  35. Charles says:

    The only loon here is the one who would believe one of Saddam’s goons at face value.

    He con­firmed that destruc­tion took place “after vis­its of inspec­tion teams. (p.7)

    Oh gee! Really? Ya think so? Gosh I feel so darn ‘effec­tive’ now! I’m gonna go home and tell my wife how effec­tive you think I am… I mean, we didn’t actu­ally find evi­dence of the pro­grams that we now know existed, but still, thanks for the compliments!

    Fur­ther­more, Kamel describes the elim­i­na­tion of pro­hib­ited mis­siles: “not a sin­gle mis­sile left but they had blue­prints and molds

    Except of course for the one’s they con­tin­ued to develop in the 90’s that the UN repeat­edly warned them on. Oh, and also except for those pro­hib­ited mis­siles that were iden­ti­fied before the war. and they were not sup­posed to retain molds/plans anyway.

    That’s odd. Does he mean that with­out spe­cific instruc­tions to the con­trary, fac­tory worker bees would sim­ply make wmd by default?

    Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their exis­tence from inspec­tors, in the hopes of some­day resum­ing pro­duc­tion after inspec­tions had finished.

    1) Iraq has not disarmed;

    We had no con­clu­sive proof to the con­trary, since Sad­dam chose to destroy most of his weapons in secret in vio­la­tion of the cease fire terms.

    2) inspec­tions can­not dis­arm it;

    As Kamal proved, we weren’t going to find any­thing that they were try­ing to hide from us.

    3) defec­tors such as Kamel are the most reli­able source of infor­ma­tion on Iraq’s weapons.

    True as far as that goes. We didn’t have any­thing ‘more’ reli­able. The inspec­tors proved them­selves inca­pable of find­ing pro­grams that were being hid­den. If Kamal hadn’t dis­closed these pro­grams, we never would have known.

    The rest of your quotes sim­ply rein­force the point.

    Oh, and here’s another twist that is far more plausible:

    Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their exis­tence from inspec­tors, in the hopes of some­day resum­ing pro­duc­tion after inspec­tions had finished.

    How about send­ing Kamal abroad to ‘defect’ and reveal what Sad­dam wanted him to reveal? They cough up some bits of pro­grams, hope the world takes the bait, backs off, and then let’s Sad­dam resume his pro­grams? That is far more con­sis­tant with Saddam’s deceit­ful and duplic­i­tous tac­tics. Of course poor Kamal didn’t real­ize that Sad­dam really did have to kill him to con­vince the west that he was legit.

    If Kamal had really defected and left his fam­ily behind in Iraq, know­ing Saddam’s bru­tal­ity and treat­ment of peo­ple he didn’t trust, do you really think he would have returned?

    That was cer­tain death.

  36. Michael says:

    I think you missed the point Char­lie, that being that Kamel was delib­er­ately mis­quoted by the Bush regime. It’s not a ques­tion of whether he could be believed or not, it was a ques­tion of Kamal’s state­ment being delib­er­ately misquoted.

    Bush lied , not the slight­est bit about it,it’s undeniable.

  37. Charles says:

    You mean this quote?

  38. Charles says:

    In 1995, after sev­eral years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s mil­i­tary indus­tries defected.

    True

    It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had pro­duced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly bio­log­i­cal agents.

    True

    The inspec­tors, how­ever, con­cluded that Iraq had likely pro­duced two to four times that amount.

    True

    True. Unless you con­sider ‘accounted for’ to mean ‘anec­do­tal tes­ti­mony claim­ing secret uni­lat­eral destruc­tion in vio­la­tion of unsc require­ments from the head of the wmd pro­grams who has been tasked with deceiv­ing inspectors.’

    Its like if you had past con­vic­tions of tax eva­sion, and the IRS came to do an audit. Accord­ing to their records you had an income of $1,000,000.00. You only reported an income of $50,000.00.

    When asked to explain the dis­crepency, you claim that in fact they are wrong and you never earned that much. When that story doesn’t work, you claim that you earned the money, but you didn’t really keep track of it, and you gave it all away, so they shouldn’t get all wor­ried about it.

    Your attor­ney pro­vides that as evi­dence in court. “My client claims that while he did in fact earn the money, and is sorry for lying about it ear­lier, that he in fact did give it away, but has no records of that. I think we should take him at his word.”

    Its one thing to worry about taxes, its quite another to worry about a bru­tal dic­ta­tor with wmd who has used them in the past.

  39. Michael says:

    Once again blow­ing smoke Char­lie. The fact is Bush lied about the state­ments Kamel had made.
    Char­lie writes “It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had pro­duced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly bio­log­i­cal agents.
    True”

    The “regime” never admit­ted any­thing of the sort, the real­ity was that Kamel said “noth­ing remained”.

    You know Char­lie this is the rea­son why it’s really not worth dis­cussing any­thing about Iraq with you, you are clearly pre­pared to swear black is white and to lie through your teeth rather than admit the truth.

  40. Charles says:

    Hav­ing ‘had’ pro­duced is not incon­sis­tant with the claim that ‘noth­ing remained.‘
    For noth­ing to ‘remain’, it must have at one time existed. Oth­er­wise how could it have been destroyed? All we can dis­cern con­clu­sively is that the mate­r­ial was pro­duced. The ques­tion remains ‘what hap­pened to it?’ Kamal’s claims are not con­clu­sive as they are not ver­i­fyable. This is typ­i­cal — and deliberate.

    But do tell. What did the 1995 ‘com­plete and final dis­clo­sure #8′ admit to after Kamal’s defec­tion? Did they admit to lying about their pro­grams? Are there any for­mal account­ings of the raw mate­ri­als and final prod­ucts, with strictly con­trolled chain of cus­tody as would NECESSARILY BE THE CASE WHEN DEALING WITH THESE TYPES OF MATERIALS (even if you are a bru­tal dic­ta­tor you don’t fuck around with this stuff. And you can be sure Sad­dam had things tightly con­trolled)? Was the final link in the chain of cus­tody the un inspec­tors as required by the cease fire agree­ment? If not, then its just Saddam’s word against the rest of the world.

    You can pre­tend that Kamal’s claims have some spe­cial value even after he admit­ted to deceiv­ing the UN for years. But he is just a guy with a vested inter­est who made claims. That is noth­ing new.

    You are try­ing hard to split hairs here. But the truth is that up until his over­throw and US ver­i­fi­ca­tion of his dis­ar­ma­ment, no one was sure he had disarmed.

    You can argue that con­tain­ment was bet­ter than war, and that he had been ‘mostly’ dis­armed ‘prob­a­bly’, but don’t pre­tend that Sad­dam was con­sid­ered in com­pli­ance with unsc require­ments by the unsc prior to the out­break of hos­til­i­ties in 2003.

  41. Charles says:

    This link also pro­vides some inter­est­ing ref­er­ence points.

    Looks like it might be a race to the bottom.

    Since we owe every­one in Europe 1 mil­lion, and they all owe us 1 mil­lion, let’s just can­cel them out.

  42. Jarn says:

    Charles, the thing that strikes me in your argu­ment with Michael is that you want to have it both ways. You site Kamal’s tes­ti­mony to sup­port your asser­tion that inspec­tions don’t work, but you dis­miss him as a lying dou­ble agent when his claims about the destruc­tion of WMDs are raised.

    And you really didn’t answer the ques­tion about Bush’s lies. You paint Bush as a vic­tim of bad intel, but he clearly left out the part of Kamal’s tes­ti­mony that con­tra­dicted his ratio­nale for war, as he did with much of the other evi­dence. If you’re not will­ing to admit that he lied, would you at least agree that Bush selec­tively cited the evidence?

  43. Charles says:

    Jarn,

    You site Kamal’s tes­ti­mony to sup­port your asser­tion that inspec­tions don’t work, but you dis­miss him as a lying dou­ble agent when his claims about the destruc­tion of WMDs are raised.

    The ‘dou­ble agent’ part was not seri­ous. But again, it is even more cred­i­ble than msot of the con­spir­acy the­o­ries posted here.

    You are fail­ing to iden­tify a key dis­tinc­tion here between ‘tes­ti­mony’ and ‘proof’. Kamal’s tes­ti­mony was not con­sid­ered self suf­fi­cient. He dis­closed that Sad­dam had delib­er­ately hid­den key pro­grams. This is damn­ing evi­dence to be sure, but the decep­tions were only proven when Sad­dam offi­cially revealed them after Kamal’s defec­tion. It wasn’t based on Kamal’s tes­ti­mony alone.

    Kamal’s tes­ti­mony that ‘every­thing’ was destroyed is nice tes­ti­mony, but it doesn’t prove anything.

    Inspec­tors had been deal­ing with Sad­dam for years and they knew he was not dis­clos­ing every­thing. Kamal’s tes­ti­mony sup­ported their first hand expe­ri­ence. Saddam’s dis­clo­sures then proved it unequivocally.

    Kamal’s state­ments that ‘every­thing had been destroyed’ were just words. There was no proof of this.

    At the end of GWI, Sad­dam agreed to:

    1. dis­close every­thing;
    2. coop­er­ate with inspec­tors to show them every­thing;
    3. destroy every­thing under UN supervision.

    He N E V E R did this. Peo­ple will try to rewrite his­tory because stock­piles were not found in 2003, but the basic argu­ment remains valid.

    In 1998, the inspec­tors con­cluded unan­i­mously that sam­ples of war­heads sent to lab­o­ra­to­ries for analy­sis con­tained weaponized vx. This was in direct con­tra­dic­tion to Saddam’s disclosures.

    When pass­ing this report to the Per­ma­nent Rep­re­sen­ta­tive, I would pro­pose to invite his par­tic­u­lar atten­tion and through him that of the author­i­ties in Bagh­dad, to three key aspects of the report: “all ana­lyt­i­cal data pro­vided by the three lab­o­ra­to­ries were again con­sid­ered as con­clu­sive and valid”; “the exis­tence of VX degra­da­tion prod­ucts con­flicts with Iraqi dec­la­ra­tions that the uni­lat­er­ally destroyed spe­cial wear­heads had never been filled with CW agents”; and, the rec­om­men­da­tions of the group of experts that UNSCOM invite Iraq “to explain first the ori­gin and his­tory of the frag­ments analysed by all three lab­o­ra­to­ries and then the pres­ence of degra­da­tion prod­ucts of nerve agents” and “to explain the pres­ence of a com­pound known as VX sta­bi­lizer and its degra­da­tion prod­uct and to pro­vide more infor­ma­tion on the Iraqi efforts dur­ing the period mid-1988 to the end of 1990 to develop and pro­duce VX by improved syn­thetic routes”.

  44. Jarn says:

    Charles, I’m not ques­tion­ing that Sad­dam had WMDs or that he lied about them. I said that Bush selec­tively used Kamal’s tes­ti­mony and ignored the rest. Do you disagree?

  45. Charles says:

    I said that Bush selec­tively used Kamal’s tes­ti­mony and ignored the rest. Do you disagree?

    If you mean to say that Bush used the parts of Kamal’s tes­ti­mony that were ver­i­fied, and dis­counted the parts that weren’t ver­i­fied (or that were actu­ally con­tra­dicted by Saddam’s actions), then absolutely.

    Does that some­how sur­prise you?

  46. Michael says:

    Char lie we’ve been over this many times, it’s not a ques­tion of whether Kamel’s tes­ti­mony was true or false, although his­tory of course has proved his state­ments to be cor­rect, it’s a ques­tion of Bush delib­er­ately mis­quot­ing Kamel to give the com­plete oppo­site mean­ing.
    For you to try and defend this obvi­ous fact rather makes your com­ments on this and any other sub­ject totally valueless.

  47. Michael says:

    Char lie “If you mean to say that Bush used the parts of Kamal’s tes­ti­mony that were ver­i­fied, and dis­counted the parts that weren’t ver­i­fied (or that were actu­ally con­tra­dicted by Saddam’s actions), then absolutely”.

    THE REALITY.

    Kamel

    Bush

  48. Jarn says:

    Charles, what ver­i­fi­ca­tion? Sus­pi­cion based on past expe­ri­ences? Maybe I’m being picky, but I think we should have had our facts damn straight before launch­ing a war, know­ing that inno­cent peo­ple would die. That Bush ignored con­tra­dic­tory evi­dence is well doc­u­mented. Are we play­ing a game of ‘emperor’s new clothes’?

    Bush lied, Charles. That they were (glar­ing) lies of omis­sion does not make them any less damning.