## Sunday, December 11, 2005 ... //

### 52.3 percent growth

What is a reasonable size of the GDP growth? 10 percent like in China? 4 percent like in the U.S.? Around 1 percent like in many European countries?

What if I tell you that a particular country had the GDP growth of 52.3 percent in 2004? Moreover, it is a country that is usually described as such a failure that the president of another country who more or less caused all these developments, including the number 52.3, should be hated or maybe even impeached according to hundreds of thousands of activists?

Don't you think that something is crazy about this whole situation? The country has not only a terrific growth potential but also a big potential to become an extremely civilized territory, just like it was thousands of years ago when Europe was their barbarian borderland.

Whether or not these things will happen depends on the acts of many people. Especially the people in that country itself. And also the people from other places in the world, especially America. Who do you think is a better human? Someone who tries to support positive developments in the world, including the country above, or someone who dreams about a failure in that country that would confirm his or her misconceptions that the president is a bad president?

I, for one, think that the members of the second group are immoral bastards. Moreover, it is pretty clear that most of them will spend the eternity at the dumping ground of history, unlike the president who will be written down as an important U.S. president in the future history textbooks.

All those critics who still retain at least a flavor of some moral values: please stop your sabotage as soon as possible. Even if you achieve what you want - a failure - it will be clear to everyone that the failure is not Bush's fault but your fault.

#### snail feedback (3) :

Lubos:

Could you be really that DUMB in quoting the 52.3% figure. I know string theoretists waste too much brain cells on research of a crackpot theory and leaves very little intelligence on matters related to reality. But your stupidity on this particular case is still astonishing.

Here is the CIA provided GDP figure for Iraq. In 2004 it's roughly 90 billion. It surely looks impressive on the chart.

BUT, Note that Iraq produces about 3 million barrels of petroleum per day. That's 1.1 billion barrel for year 2004. Mean time, the world's oil price has skyrocketed from $25 a barrel to over$60 a barrel, partly thanks to the Iraq War. The 1.1 billion Iraq oil in 2004 can fetch $66 billion dollars in world market. That basically accounted for virtually all of the Iraq's GDP of$90 billion in 2004, leaving very little else to brag about.

Had the oil price be still at $25 a barrel in 2004 as it was in 2003, it would have reduced the Iraq 2004 GDP by$38.5 billion dollar, i.e., $90B -$38.5B = $51.5B. Note that figure is lower than the Sadam years figure. Also note that during the Sadam years, with oil price actually way lower than$25 a barrel, and with UN imposed economic sanction, he was able to achieve higher GDP than the 2004 figure.

There is absolute nothing to brag about for a country in total chaos and with 70% of people without a job, and 100% of people without reliable electricity and water supply. And which only gained a SHITTY52.3% in GDP when world oil price more than doubled. Look at Sandi and you probably see 100% increase.

Quantoken

Dear Lubos,

You say: "I, for one, think that the members of the second group are immoral bastards. Moreover, it is pretty clear that most of them will spend the eternity at the dumping ground of history, unlike the president who will be written down as an important U.S. president in the future history textbooks.

"All those critics who still retain at least a flavor of some moral values: please stop your sabotage as soon as possible. Even if you achieve what you want - a failure - it will be clear to everyone that the failure is not Bush's fault but your fault."

What I enjoy is the fact that you resist continually the efforts of Woit and others to make you conform. It really is refreshing to read that there is a segment of the population who may be termed "immoral bastards" for the poverty of their views on Iraq.

The problem however is that if Iraq was really sorted out, UK and US troops wouldn't still be there. The longer they stay the more the whole episode looks like imperialism to the people and many arabs. I know the risk is that if they set a date for the troops to pull out too, then the insurgents will claim a victory, and there will always be the risk of another dictatorship arising. But they should just suddenly declare the job done and pull the troops out. It's just turning into a nightmare with people continually being blown up by terrorists, petrol bombed, hostages taken and killed, soldiers shot by snipers.

Basically the message of Bush is that he will impose democracy on dictatorships which seem to be a direct and substantiative threat to the US and its allies. In think the reason they invaded Iraq was that they thought they could achieve victory quickly with minimal risk. They did the same in Vietnam during the Cold War. They always pick fights where they think they can certainly win, so they didn't try to invade Russia to stop its nuclear threat during the Cold War, nor China. The problem is that imposing democracy is a bit artificial. It's a big jump from dictatorship to democracy with no intermediate stage. Vietnam was too corrupt and bribe controlled to have become democratic in the 60s, so it probably needed to go through the hell of communist dictatorship before people would respect the need for democracy. Similarly, some people in Iraq are used to bribery and corruption so that probably makes it hard to establish workable democracy there. I think they should pull out of Iraq and let things take their own course. It will probably be cheaper in terms of lives and money to simply invade again if another dictator arises, than to keep an army there as targets for suicide bombers.

Best wishes,
Nigel