***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<the logic still stands.>>

There was supposed to be a March 17 deadline in the doomed 2nd resolution, right? Does your logic tell you that inspections would've continued after that deadline had the resolution been adopted?

We'll never know since the oppurtunity to present a united front to Saddam was lost. It's a shame, that was the only possible way to have him to disarm peacefully.

Of course we'll never know, but you have an opinion, right? Do you think inspections would've continued after the deadline had passed if the 2nd resolution had been adopted and saddam hadn't disarmed by then?


Alistar7 - <<there was never any doubt they were going in anyway>> Care to comment on this, etech?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<the logic still stands.>>

There was supposed to be a March 17 deadline in the doomed 2nd resolution, right? Does your logic tell you that inspections would've continued after that deadline had the resolution been adopted?

We'll never know since the oppurtunity to present a united front to Saddam was lost. It's a shame, that was the only possible way to have him to disarm peacefully.

Of course we'll never know, but you have an opinion, right? Do you think inspections would've continued after the deadline had passed if the 2nd resolution had been adopted and saddam hadn't disarmed by then?


Alistar7 - <<there was never any doubt they were going in anyway>> Care to comment on this, etech?

What would be the wording of the second resolution?

Would it be France's saying "please Mr. Saddam, if you don't mind terribly, will you let us look in that building next week and if you don't we will give you a little tap on your hand"?

 

[Gaard]

I think it was worded like every other resolution. You never saw it? Shocking. Anyways, if you don't mind putting aside your silly France bashing a minute and giving an honest answer, would you mind answering the question....do you think that inspections would've continued had the deadline come and gone?

 

[etech]

Gaard,

I don't know which resolution you are talking about, there were at least two different versions proposed IIRC. Post a link if you want a definate answer.

Also please decide if whatever point you are so desperate to make is worth it. It's late and I had a long day at work.

 

[Gaard]

You're right. I'm done pulling teeth for the night. The fact that you continue to dance around instead of trying to explain your fuzzy logic...France is to blame for the war!...tells me that I'm just banging my head against a wall here. Good night.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
You're right. I'm done pulling teeth for the night. The fact that you continue to dance around instead of trying to explain your fuzzy logic...France is to blame for the war!...tells me that I'm just banging my head against a wall here. Good night.

Good night Gaard. Sometime you should watch a little kid who wants something he really shoudn't have or needs. When one parent says no and the little kid goes to the other parent and gets a yes it creates an oppurtunity for the little kid. He knows then he can play the parents against each other and make them fight and he just might get his "toy" in the end. Parents need to present a united front. Think about it.

 

[TheShiz]

alright, i was responding to a thread that got locked about the death ratio of americans to iraqies and someone said that we did not support Saddam through his worst atrocities, and I made this post. I believe we did support Saddam through it and people should know this.

Q&A with Noam Chomsky, whose opinion I take 1000% more seriously than anyone on this board.



Q: But on the other hand, the demonization of people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban gives the government free reign.

A: That's a choice of the intellectual classes. Take Saddam Hussein. Every time Blair or Bush or Clinton or Madeleine Albright or someone calls for a war on Iraq, they always say it the same way. They say, This is the worst monster in history. How can we allow him to exist? He even committed the ultimate crime: he used gas "against his own people." How can such a person exist?

All of which is correct, except for what's missing. He did use gas against "his own people" (actually, Kurds are hardly his own people),
with our support. He carried out the Anfal operation, maybe killing one hundred thousand Kurds, with our support. He was developing weapons of mass destruction at a time when he was really dangerous, and we provided him the aid and support to do it, perfectly consciously. He was a friend and ally, and he remained so.

Try to find someone who's added those words in any of the commentary. (i have seen it a bit) He's a monster, but he did it with our support because we didn't care. Almost nobody wrote that. So, yes, they can demonize Saddam Hussein but must exclude the fact that his worst crimes by far were committed with U.S. and British support. And that's not just demonizing him, it's very selective demonization.

The most you'll find sometimes is that we didn't pay enough attention too his crimes. It's not that we didn't pay attention. We didn't care. The leadership didn't care. He was performing a valuable service, no matter how awful he was. In fact, Iraq is the only country outside of Israel that was given dispensation to attack an American ship, a U.S. Navy vessel, and kill about thirty0five sailors. Most countries can't get away with that. Israel got away with it in 1967, and Iraq got away with it in 1988.

Iraqi missiles hit a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf, killing, I think, thirty-seven sailors. We didn't care. Iraq is a friend and ally. Hussein's our man, l so it was a mistake. Nobody else could get away with that. They have to be very high on the list of friends to be given that privilege. And that was at the peak of his atrocities.


this is from the book "Power and Terror" post 9/11 talks and inverviews

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know, I would like to see what's going on in these threads, but considering it takes 1/2 hr or more just to go through them, I think I'll pass.

Yes I know you all are grateful

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The agenda being executed in Iraq and throughout the world is a product of a small cadre of people determined to make the world look like a Heritage Foundation nocturnal emission. I don't recall a single reasonable observer who believed the world (or the most important country in the world

faced a significant interim threat from Iraq.

While Chirac and Putin cannot claim humanitarian virtue as their sole motivations . . . any 'coalition' that labels an invasion OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and then proceeds to liberate by dropping munitions on the capital city (and bridges) for a week . . . has serious issues.

Every American is responsible for the well-being of Iraq and its citizens. Even those of us who vehemently opposed this war and think Wolfowitz et al munch used jocks . . . should hope for an overwelming success . . . even on Bush Empire terms.

And yes . . . French is my 2nd language.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The agenda being executed in Iraq and throughout the world is a product of a small cadre of people determined to make the world look like a Heritage Foundation nocturnal emission. I don't recall a single reasonable observer who believed the world (or the most important country in the world

faced a significant interim threat from Iraq.

While Chirac and Putin cannot claim humanitarian virtue as their sole motivations . . . any 'coalition' that labels an invasion OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and then proceeds to liberate by dropping munitions on the capital city (and bridges) for a week . . . has serious issues.

Every American is responsible for the well-being of Iraq and its citizens. Even those of us who vehemently opposed this war and think Wolfowitz et al munch used jocks . . . should hope for an overwelming success . . . even on Bush Empire terms.

And yes . . . French is my 2nd language.

good points, we are responsible, I'm just glad that more and more people are out doing something about it through getting together for discussions and protests and such, it shows that there is a renewed interest in American foreign policy and more and more people are getting involved in the political discussion.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Q&A with Noam Chomsky, whose opinion I take 1000% more seriously than anyone on this board.

does noam chomsky have any solutions for solving the iraqi problem or middle east fundamentalism? all i have ever read in my brief view of him is criticism of US policies, so i'd appreciate if you can.

also a link from dahunan from c-span is pure comedy. the hosts are extremely calm as people from both sides get extremely pissed, just like atot but with voices.

 

[anazoal]

...middle east fundamentalism...

1. The US government supports oppressive regimes that do it's bidding in the region (e.g. Saddam in the 80's, the Shah in the 70's, Saud's --current, Mubarak - current, etc.).
2. These regimes crush all reasonable opposition with atrocities -- with the US turning a blind eye.
3. The radicals step in when the moderates are opressed. *
4. "The friend of my enemy [their rulers] is my enemy [the US govt]."
5. Now it's too late, the US govt is between a rock and hard place, because if it promotes democracy in the mid-east, the first swing of the pendulum will be anti-US (e.g. Iran).

*Classic labor theory... We never learn, do we?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The morality of this war is evident by the atrocities committed by Saddam against his own people, for this reason alone this is a just action.

I guess you have good answers why the same WASN'T done with Francisco Franco, Anastacio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista and specially the "golden child" of the USA "liberation efforts".... Augusto Pinochet.
All of them committed atrocities against their own people. What makes Saddam different from them???

I could go and ask the same about not removing "Butchier" Sharon, who does the same to his people (yes, by definition, without a country of their own makes most of the Palestinians part of Israel, same way most of the Kurds are "Iraquies")..... ???

What is the logic used to take some "butchers who commit atrocities" and not others...... ????

maybe you should look HERE for the current information on Pinochet, there is a thread with information that will change your opinion, you should at least understand the way the people of that conutry view him in light of new evidence. Does the fact that the socialist party ( his main enemy while in power) is fighting IN HIS BEHALF for him to return there safely even spark your curiousity?

and I will readily agree with you on most of Israels tactics in dealing with the palestinians, but I hear the call for a viable Pal state far more often from Bush than most if not all western leaders.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I will be glad to review that information that you mention after I search for such link....

Glad to hear we share some points....and yes, the Palestians have to be independent. I don't think, however that the interest in such state by Bush is legitimate. In my opinion, it is just "marketing" to keep the Arabs not very upset.

While you gave a partial answer to Pinochet, you still dodged the question regarding the others.....

 

[Alistar7]

So what % of the population is acceptable to kill in order to "liberate" them?

Andy

so far civilian casualties have been remarkably low considering the thousands of air missions and thousands of bombs. Some of those killed have been military dressed in civilian clothes, yet another major violation of the geneva convention. I would bet more have been killed by Saddam's own troops than by American bombs, reports of human shields, troops shooting deserters, forcing civilians into the line of fire to ensure higher number of civilian deaths, civilian buildings boobytrapped, etc....

Saddam killed 5,000 of his own people here, 75% of which were woman and children, his contuinued non compliance has cost MILLIONS more their lives due to a lack of adequate medical care and food. Saddam has killed more muslims than anyone in modern history, I think the relative few we might add to that total is outweighed by the benefit of the 27 million that will survive.


use 500 civilian dead to calculate that % you seek right now, what % is 500 out of 27,000,000?

What % are safe as long as he remains in power?

 

[Alistar7]

alexruiz,
not familiar enough with the others listed to make an informed comment, therefore I won't.
There is enough ignorance in the world without me spewing mine everywhere....

 

[Fencer128]

so far civilian casualties have been remarkably low considering the thousands of air missions and thousands of bombs. Some of those killed have been military dressed in civilian clothes, yet another major violation of the geneva convention. I would bet more have been killed by Saddam's own troops than by American bombs, reports of human shields, troops shooting deserters, forcing civilians into the line of fire to ensure higher number of civilian deaths, civilian buildings boobytrapped, etc....

Saddam killed 5,000 of his own people here, 75% of which were woman and children, his contuinued non compliance has cost MILLIONS more their lives due to a lack of adequate medical care and food. Saddam has killed more muslims than anyone in modern history, I think the relative few we might add to that total is outweighed by the benefit of the 27 million that will survive.

use 500 civilian dead to calculate that % you seek right now, what % is 500 out of 27,000,000?

What % are safe as long as he remains in power?

I do see your point - the distinction I would like to make is that Saddam is a brutal opppressor of his own people - they expect such atrocities from his regime. In the eyes of the Iraqi's we should be the liberators - we should be the ones protecting them from such violence. I know that from an air campaign perspective we have been very careful to minimise civilian deaths - but to deliberately fire on tanks shielded by 100's - 1,000's of civilians because they are a target of opportunity will IMHO be seen and interpreted by all concerned as a different situation.

I would even wager that if massive deaths occur through an action that deliberately put so many innocent (I'm assuming that such shields are innocent) civilians at risk not only would the repurcussions be serious from the view of liberated Iraqi's feelings towards their liberators but also from those watching this war on their televisions at home. I say this having seen interviews with those Iraqi's in exile who are pro-war. Most that I have seen would like Saddam removed by force - but not at the expense of many innocent Iraqi lives.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
alexruiz,
not familiar enough with the others listed to make an informed comment, therefore I won't.
There is enough ignorance in the world without me spewing mine everywhere....

Thanks again.... I appreciate your HONESTY and integrity by accepting when you don't have enough information to make an OBJECTIVE comment. I was looking for that Pinochet thread, but the search function returns ZERO hits when you look for "Pinochet" :|

The "Somozas" were in fact father and sons.... Anastasio Somoza father killed Sandino in 1934 and was dictator in Nicaragua before he was killed in 1956 (with complete support of the USA, as even Roosevelt said about him "He may be a s0n of a b!tch, but is the son of OUR b!tch.....") Iron fist is the rule here, as his "National guard" had no hesitation to kill anyone suspecte to oppose the regime. Total theft to the country was his signature, as while most people were starving his personal wealth was in the order on billions USD..... :Q
After he was killed, the power went to his son Luis Somoza, and when Luis died in 1967 Anastasio Somoza "son" took the power..... he was the bloodiest of the 3, to the degree of causing a revolution to free the country. The revolution was succesful (1979) and Somoza escaped to Paraguay where he was assasinated in 1980. You know the rest, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas go into power, the USA finance the contra against the new goverment and the country goes into an even worse situation.... The Somoza kids (Luis and Anastico Jr) were educated in the USA and had close ties to Washington. They are prime example of ruthless dictator. Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries in the world, in great part due to the wealth stolen by Somoza father (millions starving, struggling to survive)
I would love to hear the "liberation" efort here.

Franco doesn't need introduction. Dictator in Spain for almost 40 years!!!!! Came to power in 1936 after starting a coup (with help from Nazi Germany). Using the advanced weaponry / tactics of the Werchmacht, he had no problem to win the civil war, kill president Manuel Aza&ntilde;a and rule also with iron fist for over 30 years...... While not seen with good eyes by the USA in the beginning, his ultra ANTI comunnist ideas drive him closer to Washington. Thousands of people leave the country, with many coming into Mexico. For 30 years, any position was disolved with bullets. Result??? Spain was one of the most undeveloped countries in Western Europe when he died in 1975. All his crimes were ignored by the USA, as he was considered and "ally" to stop communism....

Batista, well, similar, he was dictator of Cuba before the Revolution started by Castro and el Che took him off power.

Alex

 

[etech]

alexruiz

What do these events that happened decades ago under different administrations and while the world was involved in a Cold War with communism have to do with what is happening now?

What is the exact link you are trying to make?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: etech
alexruiz

What do these events that happened decades ago under different administrations and while the world was involved in a Cold War with communism have to do with what is happening now?

What is the exact link you are trying to make?

Simple, my point is that the objective to "liberate" is a nice rethoric point, but in practice is a falacy. 2 of the person that I mentioned should easily be in the top 5 dictators of XX century. However, the USA did NOTHING to take them out of power or "liberate" their people.... in fact, some of them were put in power by Washington. Why??? Was the money or power more important that the VALUES of freedom that gave birth to your country??? If nothing was done, maybe not that big of a problem, but going as far as being supporter of dictators..... (in fact, a lot of countries would live a more peaceful life if the word RESPECT was understood better)

History is cyclical (a teacher used to say that is like a helix: it move forward with time, culture and science changes; but some conditions and tendencies tend to repeat) The Cold War gave the USA an "enemy", so they were trying to fight or "stop the evil created by communism"..... replace communism with terrorism and the pattern is the same..... History is cyclical. The goverment has clearly an agenda in Iraq, and in order to go ahead without popular opposition they need to convince people that the right thing is being done (what is partially true, as I wouldn't ask Saddam to be my president). The main excuse was "weapons", which we haven't seen so far (and we won't), but the message delivered by the media says "Iraqui freedom"...... There are dictators and oppressors RIGHT now in other parts of the world, but the USA says nothing. North Korea has the weapons and admit it, yet Bush still thinks negotiations are possible.

The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????

Alex

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Q&A with Noam Chomsky, whose opinion I take 1000% more seriously than anyone on this board.

does noam chomsky have any solutions for solving the iraqi problem or middle east fundamentalism? all i have ever read in my brief view of him is criticism of US policies, so i'd appreciate if you can.

also a link from dahunan from c-span is pure comedy. the hosts are extremely calm as people from both sides get extremely pissed, just like atot but with voices.

I?m not exactly certain what his solution would be, but no doubt it would not be what is going on now, as he believes this war will result in more aggression against the United States. He has a book called "middle east illusions" about the middle east I am considering picking up that has updated chapters about the current situation and has his original text from the 70's also, pretty big book at 330 pages:


book at amazon

Here is a link that tells about the book, it seems amazon is not on the ball on this one:

book description

As for Chomsky criticism of US policy, that is what he does the most because he feels it needs to be done. You surely don't see a lot of well known people doing it, way too few if you ask me, and I'm not talking about movie stars, I'm talking about people that actually know what they are talking about. But if you read his works he criticizes EVERY government in the world at one time or another. Whatever country the person he is talking to is from he usually talks about what their government has done. It just turns out that in the past 50 years or so no other country can come close to what the US has done and these things are incredibly unreported.

I feel if you are serious about knowing about US foreign policy you have to read some Chomsky, even if you don't agree with him, because his wealth of knowledge is practically unmatched in this area. A very good book to start is this one because it is from Q and A sessions and is really easy to read, his main books are harder to understand:

Understanding Power

I have to say that book is a bargain for about $14.

Tim

 

[sandorski]

Noam Chomsky is an excellent example of how to support an arguement. Many will disagree with him, call him various unflattering names and what not, but everyone could learn how to at least support their arguement by his example. Recommended reading.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: konichiwa

You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha

Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.

Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.

Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.

Legal justification

All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!

check out the al-queda/iraq thread and read the interview from the former Iraq military member, then tell me there is no link. That alone justifies US action, we will always reserve the right to defend ourselves, evewn proactively if needed.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: konichiwa

You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha

Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.

Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.

Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.

Legal justification

All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!

check out the al-queda/iraq thread and read the interview from the former Iraq military member, then tell me there is no link. That alone justifies US action, we will always reserve the right to defend ourselves, evewn proactively if needed.

If the ruling government of Iraq is in cahoots with Al-Queda, then yes, as you said, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. (and seek veagance )

But then why isn't our president using this connection as a reason to fight Iraq?

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: conjur
I believe most of the sentiment is aimed at only Bush. Most people agree that Saddam is a tyrant and should be removed from power but they disagree on the way Bush is handling it.

Some are still harboring grudges over the 2000 election and are pining for Al Gore.
Some think President Bush is making up for what his father didn't do (but Bush, Sr.'s task was not to remove Saddam from power but rather to push him out of Kuwait. That's why Powell convinced him to end the war in '91.)
Some think Bush should have been more diplomatic in his efforts to get UN approval.

Toss in general anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world and there ya go!

I just think Pres Bush sucked at attempting to convince others to follow him to war. Its like asking a kid:
Why do you think they're in material breach?
--Because they are.
Why do you think they are supporting terrorism?
--Because they are.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: etech
alexruiz

What do these events that happened decades ago under different administrations and while the world was involved in a Cold War with communism have to do with what is happening now?

What is the exact link you are trying to make?

Simple, my point is that the objective to "liberate" is a nice rethoric point, but in practice is a falacy. 2 of the person that I mentioned should easily be in the top 5 dictators of XX century. However, the USA did NOTHING to take them out of power or "liberate" their people.... in fact, some of them were put in power by Washington. Why??? Was the money or power more important that the VALUES of freedom that gave birth to your country??? If nothing was done, maybe not that big of a problem, but going as far as being supporter of dictators..... (in fact, a lot of countries would live a more peaceful life if the word RESPECT was understood better)

No, liberation is not a fallacy. The people will be out from under Saddam's rule. I already said why I don't think what the US did in the Cold War applies to this situation. If you want to go back 30, 40, 50 years and try to draw paralles to what is happening today then you may but you ignore history and the context of the world events when you do.

History is cyclical (a teacher used to say that is like a helix: it move forward with time, culture and science changes; but some conditions and tendencies tend to repeat) The Cold War gave the USA an "enemy", so they were trying to fight or "stop the evil created by communism"..... replace communism with terrorism and the pattern is the same..... History is cyclical. The goverment has clearly an agenda in Iraq, and in order to go ahead without popular opposition they need to convince people that the right thing is being done (what is partially true, as I wouldn't ask Saddam to be my president). The main excuse was "weapons", which we haven't seen so far (and we won't), but the message delivered by the media says "Iraqui freedom"...... There are dictators and oppressors RIGHT now in other parts of the world, but the USA says nothing. North Korea has the weapons and admit it, yet Bush still thinks negotiations are possible.

Saddam is the only dictator that has had twelve years of ignoring the world's demands to disarm. He is the only one that has UN resolutions that threatened him with serious consequences if he did not. But for the sake of argument, what other dictator in the world would you say deserves to be removed more than Saddam?
Korea is a different situation and all of this has been covered countless times before. Suffice it to say that a cookie cutter diplomancy argument is stupid.

The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

How do you know what the Iraqi people want? The can't speak their mind in Iraq. Almost every interview I have seen with Iraqis out of that country want Saddam gone. Again, bull, the people fighting are fighting for their power that they have under Saddam.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????

Alex

Wow, Haliburton was chosen, big deal. It is chosen for a large number of governmental contracts. Unless you can prove that VP Cheney had a direct hand in giving that contract all you have is theory and supposition.
The current contracts were made with Saddam, he's going to be out of business fairly soon. The new government will make contracts with the companies that it wants to do business with.