JF'nK, all the way!...well, until May anyhow.

TomF

I didn't think the Ralph Nader thread should be hijacked any farther into the wilderness, so I thought I would start talking about the slide of JF'nK into the oblivion of might-have-been Leaders of the Western World with Good Haircuts. This also blends into the wonderful possibility that Hillary ("two "L's, like Hell") Clinton might challenge George W. Bush in November and thereby assure that Mr. Bush will continue as President of the U.S.A.

The odds down at Paddy Power are looking a little bet better, however, with Bush now getting 8 to 13 compared to the 1 to 2 he was getting before. Don't wait too long to place your bets.

The most recent comforting column I have read is this one in the Village Voice newspaper. I think the newspaper is published in the eastern U.S. and tends to be out on the left fringes of politics.

"WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

Memnoch

are you trying to imply that Dubya is some form of a "leader" ?

yes he hijacked a democracy, then as part of his dictatorship used the american military to conquer two countries and commit numerous warcrimes, to escape prosecution through the use of force, all the while lying to the american people and using propaganda media outlets to control the flow of information of the point where american's no longer have a sense of reality.

the only leadership qualities he posses are all around how to evade the law... after he cleverly evaded serving in the military, then evaded being held to account for crimes he had committed by getting the evidence burnt, then evaded prosecution for war crimes by withdrawing America from the ICC, forcing many countries to sign bi-lateral agreements to allow american war criminals to escape and used strong arm tactics on Belgium when they tried to prosecute one of his generals. yes its obvious how Dubya is the leader of evading responsibility for crime.

Next time i play an RPG i'll put on a dubya ring of evasion for +400% evasion.

If he is "reelected" every single american should personally slit their own throats. What kind of moron wants this guy in power? An american? oh right makes sense now...

Rock Climber

Americans are morons for voting for Bush...

I'm sure you will also agree that those who support AlQueda are morons too

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Americans are morons for voting for Bush...

I'm sure you will also agree that those who support AlQueda are morons too

oh yes i certainly agree. Al queda's tactics are not justifiable despite their motives... though that being said in time i come to question my own opinion on Al Queda.

What do we in the western world expect muslims around the world to do? When they watch iraqi civillians being butchered by air strikes and aritillary bombardments, invasion of middle-eastern countries, ignorance of Israeli crimes in Palestine, backing of uni-lateral israeli plans to bypass UN resolutions and sieze control of Palestinian territory..

when one sees all these events unfold, one cannot help but come to the simple and obvious conclusion, that things such as "international and humanitarian law", do not apply to the US, nor those that it deems its "allies" at any given point in time. Iraq and Israel being a case in point.

If I, being someone that was brought up in a traditionally conservative, Hindu household that has always been fairly "anti-muslim" can be enraged by such events and injustices. One can only imagine the effects it would have on Muslim youths throughout the world?

I mean seriously, I NEVER , EVER imagined myself defending or supporting any "muslim" actions. If you spoke to me two years ago, I'd have backed Bush, etc etc etc. But as I educate myself, and Bush acts with more and more flagrant disregard for humanitarian or international concerns, I have to ask the question.

How can any rational, educated human being that believes in the concepts of justice, freedom, equality and humanity not speak out against this?

mr_angry

Originally posted by TomF
"even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air."

On the contrary, he seems to be doing an excellent job of (a) getting the rest of the world to hate him, and (b) turning every possible success into a disaster. I can only believe that anyone who votes for him in the next election is either mad, stupid, or a victim of propaganda.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch


What do we in the western world expect muslims around the world to do?

I take your point, it's obvious that the Bush regime care more for their agenda than they do for what the wider islamic world thinks.

That said however, Alqueda were planning 9-11 long before Bush came to power and during a time when a U.S regime were spearheading a war in Europe aimed at saving muslims.
I therefore cannot ever give them the benefit of the doubt, just because the stupid Bush regime is playing into their hands.

Oh what a different world we may have had if Gore won...

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
I take your point, it's obvious that the Bush regime care more for their agenda than they do for what the wider islamic world thinks.

sorry to get fascetious but you're wrong. The Bush regime care more for their agenda than what anyone else in the world thinks. They not only disregard opinion but also the value of civillians both american and foreign, as well as the lives of their own military. Which comes as no surprise since bush did his utmost to avoid serving.

That said however, Alqueda were planning 9-11 long before Bush came to power and during a time when a U.S regime were spearheading a war in Europe aimed at saving muslims.
I therefore cannot ever give them the benefit of the doubt, just because the stupid Bush regime is playing into their hands.

I would submit that while Bush has greatly inflagrated world and muslim opinion against the US. A lot of muslims were quite dissatisfied with the situation in Israel-Palestine and the US's continual veto of any resolution, and the US's interference preventing the implementation of any resolutions, not to mention the support and supply to israel of arms.

One off course has to consider the murder of half a million Iraqi' children ( that was 1995) how many more have died since?

but still, i'm not too intersted in defending Osama. What I do find ironic however , is that his proclamations of "god being on our side" suprisingly echo those of Dubya, in his speeches.

seamus

Originally posted by Memnoch
but still, i'm not too intersted in defending Osama. What I do find ironic however , is that his proclamations of "god being on our side" suprisingly echo those of Dubya, in his speeches.

Indeed. Not to put light on it, but I got the same, very matrixy, "They are two sides of the same coin" feel when Osama released his last tape.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch

One off course has to consider the murder of half a million Iraqi' children ( that was 1995) how many more have died since?

What???
Have I missed something here, did they drop a nuclear bomb on them or something??
If you are referring to sanctions thats a UN issue and not specifically a U.S issue and more than that it has a lot to do with the way the bástardo Saddam regime implimented the sanctions...
That is one thing that was found all around Iraq after the war, food and medicines that were deliberately never distributed by Saddam, who neither cared about his people or wanted it to be known that sanctions were imposed because of his big Egotistical reign.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
What???
Have I missed something here, did they drop a nuclear bomb on them or something??
If you are referring to sanctions thats a UN issue and not specifically a U.S issue and more than that it has a lot to do with the way the bástardo Saddam regime implimented the sanctions...
That is one thing that was found all around Iraq after the war, food and medicines that were deliberately never distributed by Saddam, who neither cared about his people or wanted it to be known that sanctions were imposed because of his big Egotistical reign.

you really need to educate yourself properly on this issue, read the articles posted by some scholars who point to declassified DOD documents and draw their inferences from them. A bit of googling will turn up...

the case in point summarised is..

1) The USA destroyed key installations that were necessary to clean water supply in iraq.
2) The USA through the use of sanctions prevented iraq from aquiring the parts required to repair said fascilities, and prevented iraq from getting clean water
3) The USA knew WELL BEFORE HAND what the combined consequences of these actions would be.
4) this is murder, premeditated and clod-blooded.

They made a lot of oil and money through the oil for food program.

These precedents aside, the U.S. and UK are now engaged in a deadly form of biological warfare in Iraq. The destruction of infrastructure and banning of imports to repair it has caused disease, malnutrition, and early death on a huge scale, including 567,000 children by 1995, according to UN investigations; UNICEF reports 4,500 children dying a month in 1996. In a bitter condemnation of the sanctions (January 20, 1998), 54 Catholic Bishops quoted the Archbishop of the southern region of Iraq, who reports that "epidemics rage, taking away infants and the sick by the thousands" while "those children who survive disease succumb to malnutrition." The Bishop’s statement, reported in full in Stanley Heller’s journal The Struggle, received scant mention in the press. The U.S. and Britain have taken the lead in blocking aid programs—for example, delaying approval for ambulances on the grounds that they could be used to transport troops, barring insecticides to prevent spread of disease and spare parts for sanitation systems. Meanwhile, western diplomats point out, "The U.S. had directly benefited from [the humanitarian] operation as much, if not more, than the Russians and the French," for example, by purchase of $600 million worth of Iraqi oil (second only to Russia) and sale by U.S. companies of $200 million in humanitarian goods to Iraq. They also report that most of the oil bought by Russian companies ends up in the U.S.

Rock Climber

Memnoch, you appear to be going back to 1998 to make your case, this is 2004 where a lot of the cause of the problem has already been found out
I respectively suggest you go do some further less one sided research of your own, as nearly every post I have read lately from you could be prefaced with a Down Down USA tag...
Now I'm sometimes tempted to feel like that too
I've no problem with your one sidedness with regards to the U.S, it's your perogative but...
You do realise that when one puts up an argument as one sided as you are doing all the time it takes from it's credibility as it suggests an anti USA chip rather than an interest in all the facts.
It would be better if one avoided that road.

Saddam was in control of his country on the ground at the time and not anyone else and his corupt bástardo government led a lot of the food and medical provisions meant for his own people astray.
He didn't give two hoots about them and they suffered more as a result of that than anything else.
He and he alone was responsible for what was done to the marsh arabs too.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Memnoch, you appear to be going back to 1998 to make your case, this is 2004 where a lot of the cause of the problem has already been found out

ah, really? I don't see where that article clearly illustrates that the events I've mentioned above did not happen? Nor does the article mention that this seems to prove that it was Saddams actions that were entirely responsible for the events that i've mentioned above.
Namely the US deliberately destroying Iraq's water supply through use of the "strategic bombardment and sanctions" in disregard for the Geneva Convention. Oh I will gladly admit, that Saddam was all things evil, and that he profiteered greatly at the expense of his people. However you are doing what the US has been trying to do for a while, which is conveniently lay all the blame for events on the shoulders of Saddam and use him as a convenient scapegoat.

Perhaps a little more reading is advised at your end?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/SAandUSWC.html
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

let me summarise the case for you using quotes from the article...

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply.
The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."
The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.

As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."

The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded."

The US knew this.....

the next document..

Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."

and the next one

The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."

the 3rd document

The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

the fourth document

The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children."

the fifth document

The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."

In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out."

The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."

and the scapegoating begins....

The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."

It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although current countrywide infectious disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes."

And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends completely on the Iraqi government."

post continued .....

Memnoch

post continued ......

the war crime ?

As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.

Yet somehow despite all this evidence from the DIA's own declassified documents Saddam was the chief architecht behind all this? and yet you are accusing me of partiality?

You do realise that when one puts up an argument as one sided as you are doing all the time it takes from it's credibility as it suggests an anti USA chip rather than an interest in all the facts.
It would be better if one avoided that road.

so you're telling me that I should support US actions despite facts and obvious commen sense to the contrary? I'm not interested in sacrificing my principles in the interest of gaining "credibility" as you put it. Am I anti-american? yes I am, and I have said so before. However, I wasn't born anti-american. In fact I was quite pro-american till about a year or two ago. But when one educates oneself about the history of the country, and the atrocities they have committed time and time again throughout the world.... its hard to stay "pro-american".


If I look at recent and current history, there is very little that is there that would endear one to the US. Since Dubya came to power, the US has invaded two countries, killed countless civillians, and committed numerous crimes, including but not exclusive to guantanemo bay and the use of cluster bombs on civillian targets. Not to mention the US has unilaterally withdrawn from numerous international treaties that were created for the general good and supported by most of the countries in the world. Including its withdrawl from the international criminal court.

So lets look back before Dubya? Before Dubya it was clinton. I really liked this guy, honestly I did. I never really liked dubya, i supported him in afghanasthan, but never really liked him. But I was genuinely fond of good old Bill. But again as one educates oneself, one comes to realise, that there is no real difference between the republicans and the democrats. Bush uses his bull headed tactics to invade and murder. Clinton did much the same, only he did it cleverly and disguised his actions well, making use of sanctions. The destruction of Iraq's water supply, and use of sanctions to prevent its restoration happened under the watchful eyes of Madline Albright. I'm not 100% sure of the entire timeline as this stuff began during desert storm, which was led by bush senior if my memory serves me correctly

Before clinton, was Bush Senior. I don't think I need to elaborate on him.

If we scroll further back and examine US history we can see the constant and continued support and maintainence of brutal and dictatorial regimes throughout the world. Flagrant and continued disregard for humanitarian and international law.

Vietnam and Nicargua come to mind. Support for Israeli occupation of Palestine

The truth of the matter is that the US has acted as a "rogue" state for a pretty decent amount time now. Its policies and response to INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, falls in line with countries such as Afghanasthan under the Taliban's control or Iraq under Saddam, or china with its own wonderous human rights recrod. If the US acts like these countries, why should my attitude towards it be any different than my attitude towards Iraq or Afghanasthan?

on the contrary, I would say it is you who seems to be trying to "defend" US actions at every opportunity, while maintaining a pretense at impartiality. But as long as you promise to not accuse me of being "one-sided" in the future, I'll agree to do the same. :P

On a more light note, perhaps you could point out some of the nice things the US has done for all of us recently?

But I honestly don't want to get dragged anymore into a debate about "america" because this thread is really more about Bush and Kerry.

Rock Climber

Nice Rant supported by a document from 13 years ago Memnoch.
As was pointed out to you in the other thread, the sanctions were imposed by the UN with their consent and not by the U.S
But in your own self confessed anti americanism you seem to be blind to this fact.
Yes you said:

Am I anti-american? yes I am, and I have said so before.

It's even blinding you to what thread you are replying to, as I didn't mention rogue states in this one at all you did, I mentioned a more fitting example of a rogue state in the other thread ie Sudan, where a million people have been displaced in the last year by their own government.
Your self confessed anti americanism is bringing your posts off topic rather than addressing the point that I put to you ie, the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.
Can you provide me with credible evidence as to the number of deaths caused by bad drinking water.
What you have provided so far is a prediction back in 1991, 13 years ago.
The time has passed now show me the evidence of deaths due to bad drinking water.
Even if you could, at best all you can blame the lack of materials to fix the water supply on is the UNSC sanctions and not the U.S
So perhaps again rather than clouding this discussion with blind anti americanism we could stick to the facts pertaining to Iraq or better still stick to the topic.

I wanted to see you prove that the U.S murdered half a million Iraqi children as you dramatically stated for what appears now to be purposefull ad lib anti americanism as it was in no way related to the topic of the thread.
If you cannot prove this ,then I have to conclude it is in fact a deliberate mis representation in your post and further lessens the credibility of them.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Nice Rant supported by a document from 13 years ago Memnoch.
As was pointed out to you in the other thread, the sanctions were imposed by the UN with their consent and not by the U.S

The documentS from 13 years ago were dia documents that weren't actually declassified 13 years ago... but i'm sure you knew that, good attempt at deliberate misrepresentation though.
Proff Nagy's document which contains analysis of the declassified documents was published much more recently than that. But feel free to go check it again. Ofc the fact remains that the DIA doesn't usually declassify documents for several years. I guess its convenient as you can then so, oh this is old, its no longer valid. But it is valid, because it was valid at the time.

But in your own self confessed anti americanism you seem to be blind to this fact.
Yes you said:
It's even blinding you to what thread you are replying to, as I didn't mention rogue states in this one at all you did, I mentioned a more fitting example of a rogue state in the other thread ie Sudan, where a million people have been displaced in the last year by their own government.

Now this is a personal and low blow attack that really annoys me. This entire discussion about the debate on iraq's water supply in this thread began in response to your post...
Originally posted by Rock Climber

What???
Have I missed something here, did they drop a nuclear bomb on them or something??
If you are referring to sanctions thats a UN issue and not specifically a U.S issue and more than that it has a lot to do with the way the bástardo Saddam regime implimented the sanctions...
That is one thing that was found all around Iraq after the war, food and medicines that were deliberately never distributed by Saddam, who neither cared about his people or wanted it to be known that sanctions were imposed because of his big Egotistical reign.

You pointed out that I was biased against america. And in response to that i demonstrated to you the reasons behind my "anti-americanism". That being that america is a rogue state, such as the likes of iraq under saddam etc. Therefore I view it AS SUCH. I did not make the mistake of thinking i was in the other thread, nor did i try to "drag thigns off topic" I was simply replying to a point you had made and clarifying my position. And its pathetic of you to try and use that to "try" even more pathetically to "discredit" me.

Your self confessed anti americanism is bringing your posts off topic rather than addressing the point that I put to you ie, the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.

says who? Who says the oil for food program was responsible for all those deaths?

Agreement: Although established in April 1995, the implementation of the programme started only in December 1996, after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996 (S/1996/356). The first Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food Programme was exported in December 1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997.

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/

sooo... the oil for food program didn't actually come into effect until 1997... now lets see....

These precedents aside, the U.S. and UK are now engaged in a deadly form of biological warfare in Iraq. The destruction of infrastructure and banning of imports to repair it has caused disease, malnutrition, and early death on a huge scale, including 567,000 children by 1995, according to UN investigations; UNICEF reports 4,500 children dying a month in 1996. In a bitter condemnation of the sanctions (January 20, 1998), 54 Catholic Bishops quoted the Archbishop of the southern region of Iraq, who reports that "epidemics rage, taking away infants and the sick by the thousands" while "those children who survive disease succumb to malnutrition." The Bishop’s statement, reported in full in Stanley Heller’s journal The Struggle, received scant mention in the press. The U.S. and Britain have taken the lead in blocking aid programs—for example, delaying approval for ambulances on the grounds that they could be used to transport troops, barring insecticides to prevent spread of disease and spare parts for sanitation systems.

so we are talking of the death of over half a million iraqi children, by 1995. thats TWO years before the oil for food program was brought into effect.

So now it is my turn to ask you? Have you tried to deliberatily mislead the arguement? Or were you ignorant of the fact that these 567k+ deaths of children happened by 1995, a full 2 years before any shipments arrived in iraq under the oil for food program? Yet you claim its the oil for food program and not the state of the countries water supply is to blame...

but some how i'm the one who is blind to the obvious because of my "preconceptions".

I now submit that in your blindness and "pro-americanism", you ignored or were ignorant of the fact that the program didn't even begin till 1997, yet you set to attribute the deaths that occured two years before the beginning of the program to it.

Can you provide me with credible evidence as to the number of deaths caused by bad drinking water.
What you have provided so far is a prediction back in 1991, 13 years ago.
The time has passed now show me the evidence of deaths due to bad drinking water.

i think the above answers this.

Even if you could, at best all you can blame the lack of materials to fix the water supply on is the UNSC sanctions and not the U.S

actually wrong...
it is clear from the released DIA documents that the US destroyed iraq's infrastructure during the gulf war... that the US knew in 1991 what was going to happen as a result, that the US knowing what was going to happen DELIBERATELY was the CHIEF ARCHITECH behind the sanctions that prevented iraq from repairing fascilities that the US destroyed. Also the fact that the UN wasn't aware of the effect of the sanctions for a full 5-6 years, and after it became aware tried to establish the oil-for-food prgoram, which sadly failed bitterly.
but again we cannot ignore the basic facts... which i will sum up simply for you since you seem to fail to want to look them up (ie the oil for food program beginning in 1997).

1) the US destroyed Iraq's infrastructure.
2) the US knew the consequenses would result in disease outbreaks and epidemics.
3) The US then KNOWING ALL THIS, was the chief architecht behind sanctions designed specifically for the purpose of denying the iraqi's the ability to repair these facilities.
4) Lets keep in mind that the US had very clear info on this as early as the beginning of '91 and quite concretely by the end of '91.
5) Lets also keep in mind that the UN DID NOT HAVE access to this information from the now declassified DIA documents.
6) These measures instituted by the US, through a careful manipulation of the UN and witholding of CRUCIAL information, resulted in the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children by 1995, and many many more.
8) the oil for food program didn't actually begin till March 1997 when the first shipment arrived

So perhaps again rather than clouding this discussion with blind pro americanism we could stick to the facts pertaining to Iraq, including the fact you so conveniently ignore regarding the oil for food program or better still stick to the topic.

Just a bit of friendly advice
Next time you make an arguement like this, you should research your facts a little bit better, it will save you embaressment.

Nice try though, blaming the oil for food program that didn't begin till 97 for deaths that happend by 95.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
I guess its convenient as you can then so, oh this is old, its no longer valid. But it is valid, because it was valid at the time.

I asked you to associate all the deaths with polluted water and you haven't or cannot do so, you can talk all you like about something that was predicted,but now that we are 13 years on from the prediction, can you show me where the water was responsible specifically for the 500,000 child deaths?
Theres no doubt that some may have been but all of them?
Saddam had no responsibility for a lot of them , he being the vested power on the ground? come now!
Further more you've only provided evidence of UN sanctions preventing the importation of filtration equipment.
Thats not a U.S action.

Now this is a personal and low blow attack that really annoys me. This entire discussion about the debate on iraq's water supply in this thread began in response to your post...

Au contraire, I'm not accusing you of being anti american, I couldn't care less if you were or not to be honest, I'm not here to defend or specifically attack anyone, but you openly admit that you are.
Thats not a personal attack by me on you.

says who? Who says the oil for food program was responsible for all those deaths?

Well I certainly didn't I said the way the UN sanctions were administered by Saddam was responsible for a lot of the deaths.
I only mentioned Saddams corruption with the oil for food programme as being responsible for the deaths in the context that it caused more death and misery than you can directly pin on the U.S and I brought up the oil for food programme in relation to your mentioning of some bishops report on sanctions from 1998 after it was up and running.
My link to how saddam profited from it, was just an indication of his treachery and an example of his culpability in the deaths of his own people.
I wonder were they aware of the extent at the time of Saddams creaming off of the offp which was resulting in the wreckless abandonment and killing by him of his own people for his own selfish ends.
I very much doubt it.
Also given that saddam was also aware of his countries and peoples needs after his illegal invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war,he could have and should have satisfied the requirements of the UN for closure on the episode.
By not doing so he played the leading role in the destruction of the lives of the children you are talking about.
He disobeyed and frustrated the UN with his charades and in so doing facilitated the misery and deaths of his own people.

I now submit that in your blindness and "pro-americanism", you ignored or were ignorant of the fact that the program didn't even begin till 1997, yet you set to attribute the deaths that occured two years before the beginning of the program to it.

Re- Read my posts before you mis represent me again.
Where have I been pro american, go on tell me and where did I even suggest a lack of knowledge about the offp.
You started off stating America murdered 500,000 plus children in Iraq here yet the only evidence you provide for this is UN sanctions ordered by the UNSC and not America.
You seem to be absolving St Saddam of all sin here and pinning the blame for all malnutrition deaths on America.
The U.S aint saints here and neither is Saddam and well you know it.
As regards your summation of the facts, you keep assuming that the U.S knew what was going to happen in the coming years.
The man in control on the ground was Saddam, he was in the driving seat, he had control of the buttons that needed pushing to save his people.
But he had his own agenda and humanitarian assistance to his citizens was not on the list.
No he'd rather build palaces.

Memnoch

Rock climber -
Read Proffessor Nagy's article please, then we can continue this discussion...

its clear from your statements that you haven't read it...

let me quote a small piece of it for you ... from a DIA declassified document...

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

the US destroyed this infrastructure through its bombings in the gulf war...
it then spear headed the sanctions to prevent iraq from aquiring replacement parts as well as cholrine which was needed to purify the water...

I don't understand why you can't get ONE SIMPLE FACT through to your brain...

that the US was AWARE of the effects that the bombings + sanctions would have in 1991, while the UN wasn't aware of it till late 95-96 after which it started the oil for food program.

You can rhetorically repeat as many times as you want that the UN imposed the sanctions, but that DOES NOT circumvent the fact that the US was the CHIEF ARCHITECHT BEHIND these sanctions.

Also the US knew the reprecussions of these on the civillian population of iraq and could easily have stopped or lessened the sanctions restricting them to military equipment.

However the fact remains that its the US and UK that blocked aid programs such as ambulances etc. Its a clear indication of their intent right from the start.


As regards your ignorance...

this is what you said

Memnoch, you appear to be going back to 1998 to make your case, this is 2004 where a lot of the cause of the problem has already been found out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3648409.stm

in response to my post above which included ....

These precedents aside, the U.S. and UK are now engaged in a deadly form of biological warfare in Iraq. The destruction of infrastructure and banning of imports to repair it has caused disease, malnutrition, and early death on a huge scale, including 567,000 children by 1995, according to UN investigations; UNICEF reports 4,500 children dying a month in 1996. In a bitter condemnation of the sanctions (January 20, 1998), 54 Catholic Bishops quoted the Archbishop of the southern region of Iraq, who reports that "epidemics rage, taking away infants and the sick by the thousands" while "those children who survive disease succumb to malnutrition." The Bishop’s statement, reported in full in Stanley Heller’s journal The Struggle, received scant mention in the press.

you also said.....

the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.

so which DEAHTS are you referring to in your above quote again pls?

its obvious you were referring to the deaths that I mentioned above of iraqi children, that you sought to blame on the oil for food program.
so please, DO NOT pretend that you did not know that I was talking about the 567,000 deaths reported by 1995...

and as I pointed out to you already, the oil for food program did not take effect until 1997...

but now that I've caught you out you try to jump around and skirt the issue... but you can't deny what you said... and i'll quote you again for good measure...

the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.

NO mention of ANY bishop's in that statement by you.

please stop forcing me to continually embaress you on this point.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch


it is clear from the released DIA documents that the US destroyed iraq's infrastructure during the gulf war... that the US knew in 1991 what was going to happen as a result, that the US knowing what was going to happen

As in the other thread you are repeatedly showing me a prediction of events before they happened to exclusively lay blame for events after they happened.
Saddam doesn't figure at all apperently according to this type of analysis.
He apparently could have had no influence on events on the ground over the next 13 years.
With respect that is an indefenceable position for you to take.
My mentioning of the oil for food programme was to be indicative of saddams selfish treachery.
Are you maintaining that water was exclusively the reason for the childrens deaths and again where is your proof?
You yourself again have requoted a piece referring to what prompted me to mention the offp ie what the Bishops said in 1998.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
As in the other thread you are repeatedly showing me a prediction of events before they happened to exclusively lay blame for events after they happened.
Saddam doesn't figure at all apperently according to this type of analysis.

wrong... i have shown you many events that DID happen and WERE happening at the time and that the US knew clearly what was happening and that these events were in line with their predictions. let me refresh your memory with a few quotes from the DIA documents..

"Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

there is no prediction here... this was happening... the document clearly uses the word UNDOUBTEDLY increased. It also tells us WHY, because of the destruction of CIVILLIAN infrastructure that was necessary for CLEAN WATER SUPPLIES, including electricity, waste disposal, water purification and distribution.

here is another couple of quotes... note again NONE of these are PREDICTIONS

Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war.

note "RESULTING FROM THE WAR"

the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases.

no predictions here either.....

The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children

more predictions you say???

He apparently could have had no influence on events on the ground over the next 13 years. With respect that is an indefenceable position for you to take.

Really? its indefencebale because you are misrepresenting the facts perhaps?

Note... firstly these events "on the ground" DID not take place over 13 years. They took place between 1991 and 1995. Thats 4 years.

Secondly, Saddam could have done nothing about the situation, in fact this is clearly outlined in the DIA documents. I fail too see how saddam is responsible here. Perhaps you can point it out. So far all you do is say that "saddam is a bad guy " and that his actions in the oil for food program somehow prove that he was responsible for this crises? Thats just rubbish and you haven't provided any evidence to back this up.

Saddam had no influence over the bombing of civillian infrastructure by the US air force.

Saddam also had no influence in the embargo of these specific vital materials that were needed to ensure the clean water supply.
So yes, he actually didn't have any influence here. Whatever he DID on the ground, he couldn't produce chlorine or the replacement parts out of thin air.

My mentioning of the oil for food programme was to be indicative of saddams selfish treachery.
You yourself again have requoted a piece referring to what prompted me to mention the offp ie what the Bishops said in 1998.

again nice try to dodge here. I don't care what you claim "prompted" you to mention the oil for food program.. the fact is, what YOU SAID.... WAS..... and I quote..

the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.

so again? which DEATHS were you referring to? Clearly, you were referring to the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children that I mentioned. Since those are the only deaths I mentioned and we were debating them.
Again those "deaths" occured by 1995, whereas the offp didn't begin till 97. Clearly you were ignorant about when the offp began, but when you saw the BBC article about saddam's corruption, you jumped in to use it without reading up on it properly. You CLEARLY tried to attribute the main cause of the deaths as being saddam's corruption of the offp. When this could not have been the case considering the offp didn't start till 97. Had you known this, I doubt you would have made such a foolish statement... and I quote you once again..

the UN administered oil for food programme was corruptly abused by Saddam which seems to have been a bigger reason for the deaths than anything you can present about water.

no onto your final "point"

Are you maintaining that water was exclusively the reason for the childrens deaths and again where is your proof?

so you are saying that you are completely ignorant as to what effects the LACK of clean water will have on a civillian population? Noting that iraq's clean water supply was reduced to 5% of pre-war levels. Again I urge you, please educate yourself. go speak to ANY doctor, and ask them what would happen if people did not have access to clean drinking water on such a wide scale.

I will try to educate you a little, using quotes from the DIA declassified documents...

Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation

due to what? what? inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation.. what does sanitation depend on? WATER

The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children

the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children).

guess what causes gastroenteritis?

Originally posted by Memnoch

there is no prediction here... this was happening... the document clearly uses the word UNDOUBTEDLY increased. It also tells us WHY, because of the destruction of CIVILLIAN infrastructure that was necessary for CLEAN WATER SUPPLIES, including electricity, waste disposal, water purification and distribution.

Not wishing to take up someone elses sword, but how long did the first Gulf war go on for?
Of course there were problems and disease during and immediately after the war, but as far as I can remember it didnt go on untill 1995.
Now who had the power to obey the UNSC in the meantime?
Yes Saddam.
What measures did he take to relieve his peoples plight?
Unless you can show that he was being reasonable and with the best interests of his people, he and he alone was responsible for most of the deaths after the Gulf war.
He could have stopped it, but seemed more interested in increasing his overall wealth.
That sort of pours cold water on the notion that the events of the war itself were responsible.
And thats not even mentioning why the war started in the first place.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
Not wishing to take up someone elses sword, but how long did the first Gulf war go on for?
Of course there were problems and disease during and immediately after the war, but as far as I can remember it didnt go on untill 1995.
Now who had the power to obey the UNSC in the meantime?
Yes Saddam.
What measures did he take to relieve his peoples plight?
Unless you can show that he was being reasonable and with the best interests of his people, he and he alone was responsible for most of the deaths after the Gulf war.
He could have stopped it, but seemed more interested in increasing his overall wealth.
That sort of pours cold water on the notion that the events of the war itself were responsible.
And thats not even mentioning why the war started in the first place.

you are making the same point here that you were making in the other post... as I've already refuted this point in detail in the other post I won't bother doing so again in this post as i will just be reiterating myself....

Saddam's non-compliance isn't an issue, no matter how much you or the US wants it to be. The geneva convention prohibits this.

attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

so weather they use bombs or sanctions, it doesn't matter, its illegal and prohibited, no mater WHAT they are trying to achieve by this... again this is stated clearly by the Geneva Convention...

whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive

"WHATEVER THE MOTIVE"

Saddam's non-compliance isn't an issue, no matter how much you or the US wants it to be. The geneva convention prohibits this.

Oh it is an issue, the compliance would have saved his people, which he clearly even though he was their ruler, had no concern for.
But as I said to you in the other thread, this is where we disagree

Sand

You need 1.5 threads for this?

Taking the bus back to the topic: it doesnt matter if Bush wins or Kerry wins. The War on Terror will still be prosecuted, the Congress will still not sign up to deals like kyoto they view as crap ( Clinton didnt dare try get it ratified - the crap duty fell to Bush, he just sided with the winning team ) and the US will still be the world hyperpower and the US policy with regard to international affairs will still be multilateral where possible and unilateral where necessary as Madeline Albright ( from the era of Saint Clinton, remember? ) might put it. The SWP types have managed to personify Bush as being everything they hate, and probably feel an electoral defeat will be a great victory for them....would this be a good time to play that Boards gathering card for new nick, same old ****?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
Oh it is an issue, the compliance would have saved his people, which he clearly even though he was their ruler, had no concern for.
But as I said to you in the other thread, this is where we disagree

it doesn't matter weather we agree or not...
the geneva convention SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS the use of such tactics

your effectively saying that we should give in to the demands of the terrorist because that is what this situation is analogous too..

"do what we say or we will kill iraqi people with sanctions".... thats why the geneva convention is there, to prohibit this kind of terrorism

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You need 1.5 threads for this?

Taking the bus back to the topic:

Thank you, and I agree.

Memnoch and Earthman...one topic is more than enough to have your little tete-a-tete. This topic is not that one.

Now either get back on topic, or get off the bus.

jc

Memnoch

gladly, i'm getting tired of having to re-iterate myself in two posts on the exact same stuff anyways