America - a Rogue State

Memnoch

I read a very intersting article by Noam Chomsky, about america...

interstingly I never new that America was actually convicted of war crimes in Nicargua, i wonder if that will shut up those who claim that america has never committed any war crimes since it was never convicted... ironically ofc like what happened to Belgium, the conviction was denounced and american political might was brought to bear against the international court...

no wonder bush was so eager to withdraw from the ICC, considering the mass of war crimes he was about to begin in Iraq and Afghanasthan.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

another intersting article is one that doesn't make any arguements, but simply outlines point by point many instances in which the USA has acted to circumvent the world's authority and that of the UN. The many many times america has withdrawn unilaterally from treaties endorsed by almost everyone in the world. The US is comparable to countries like Iraq under Saddam's rule and Afghanasthan under the Taliban, etc etc etc.

I suppose its ironic, that the most powerful terrorist state in the world, is attacked only by another terrorist organisation, Al Queda. Its even more ironic considering the US was largely responsible for building Al queda. Looks like they built it in their own image to well.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/American/rogue.html

a couple of intersting quotes from both articles follow...

Returning to Iraq, it surely qualifies as a leading criminal state. Defending the U.S. plan to attack Iraq at a televised public meeting on February 18, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked the ultimate atrocity: Saddam was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who asked about U.S. support for Suharto. Shortly after, Senator Lott condemned Kofi Annan for seeking to cultivate a "human relationship with a mass murderer," and denounced the Administration for trusting a person who would sink so low.

Ringing words. Putting aside their evasion of the question raised, Albright and Cohen only forgot to mention—and commentators have been kind enough not to point out—that the acts that they now find so horrifying did not turn Iraq into a "rogue state." And Lott failed to note that his heroes Reagan and Bush forged unusually warm relations with the "mass murderer." There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the U.S. and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy." When ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam’s biological warfare programs ten months after Halabja, the State Department denied the facts, and the story died; the Department "now issues briefings on the same site," Glass observes.

can you say H Y P O C R I S Y ?

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.

But so cleverly done that they will never be held responsible for the murder of over half a million iraqi children.

In passing, one might note that the destruction of Iran Air 655 in Iranian airspace by the Vincennes may come back to haunt Washington. The circumstances are suspicious, to say the least. In the Navy’s official journal, Commander David Carlson wrote that he "wondered aloud in disbelief" as he observed from his nearby vessel as the Vincennes—then within Iranian territorial waters—shot down what was obviously a civilian airliner in a commercial corridor, perhaps out of "a need to prove the viability of Aegis," its high tech missile system. The commander and key officers "were rewarded with medals for their conduct," Marine Corps colonel (retired) David Evans observes in the same journal in an acid review of the Navy Department cover-up of the affair. President Bush informed the UN that "One thing is clear, and that is that the Vincennes acted in self-defense...in the midst of a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels...," all lies Evans points out, though of no significance, given Bush’s position that "I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are." A retired Army colonel who attended the official hearings concluded that "our Navy is too dangerous to deploy."

It is difficult to avoid the thought that the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie a few months later was Iranian retaliation, as stated explicitly by Iranian intelligence defector Abolhassem Mesbahi, also an aide to President Rafsanjani, "regarded as a credible and senior Iranian source in Germany and elsewhere," the Guardian reports. A 1991 U.S. intelligence document (National Security Agency), declassified in 1997, draws the same conclusion, alleging that Akbar Mohtashemi, a former Iranian interior minister, transferred $10 million "to bomb Pan Am 103 in retaliation for the U.S. shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus," referring to his connections with "the Al Abas and Abu Nidal terrorist groups." It is striking that despite the evidence and the clear motive, this is virtually the only act of terrorism not blamed on Iran. Rather, the U.S. and UK have charged two Libyan nationals with the crime.

The one act of terrorism that hasn't been blamed on Iran, despite an iranian defector testifying for the same?

Contempt for the rule of law is deeply rooted in U.S. practice and intellectual culture. Recall, for example, the reaction to the judgment of the World Court in 1986 condemning the U.S. for "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua, demanding that it desist and pay extensive reparations, and declaring all U.S. aid to the contras, whatever its character, to be "military aid," not "humanitarian aid." The Court was denounced on all sides for having discredited itself. The terms of the judgment were not considered fit to print, and were ignored. The Democrat-controlled Congress immediately authorized new funds to step up the unlawful use of force. Washington vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to respect international law—not mentioning anyone, though the intent was clear. When the General Assembly passed a similar resolution, the U.S. voted against it, effectively vetoing it, joined only by Israel and El Salvador; the following year, only the automatic Israeli vote could be garnered. Little of this received mention in the media or journals of opinion, let alone what it signifies.

The US wants countries to follow international law that it chooses to ignore when it suits it.

1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination
against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are
the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

the US supports equal rights for women right?

Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous
foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid
providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross
domestic
products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands
(0.79),
The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and
Austria
(all
0.26).

thats an intersting statistic. ... so the US actually gives the least amount of aid when taken as a percentage of GDP

Memnoch

no one has any opinions on all this? oh well

Hobbes

You automatically invalidate the argument by quoting Noam Chomsky.

chill

Originally posted by Memnoch
I suppose its ironic, that the most powerful terrorist state in the world, is attacked only by another terrorist organisation, Al Queda.

The only irony here is that so much trash can be produced with so little thought.

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
The only irony here is that so much trash can be produced with so little thought.

Wow, you've completely demolished his argument there. Oh wait, it's Chill - I forgot you don't see the need to back up your assertions.

ssh

And of course neither of your so called examples of irony are actually ironic. They are coincidence.

bonkey

Chill - is there some reason that you seem incapable of making a post here without insulting the person you disagree with?

I'm getting fed up of seeing this every time you decide to grace us with your presence.

One of us will have to make it stop.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
The only irony here is that so much trash can be produced with so little thought.

What I was getting at. Noam makes very good arguments. I have even seen him put people in their place on TV.

He is worth listening to. However heaven forbid you bring him up in a dicussion as your whole argument will be shot down because it is Noam saying it.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Hobbes
What I was getting at. Noam makes very good arguments. I have even seen him put people in their place on TV.

He is worth listening to. However heaven forbid you bring him up in a dicussion as your whole argument will be shot down because it is Noam saying it.

why don't you attack the actual arguements, rather than the person making them?

this seems like a case of, oh we can't actually counter the points made in the arguement as they seem to be well thought out and based on factual evidence, so lets just dismess the arguer all together.

those quotes i posted from Noam's article refer to actual events that have transpired so... i'll await your refuation of the arguements.

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
Chill - is there some reason that you seem incapable of making a post here without insulting the person you disagree with?

I'm getting fed up of seeing this every time you decide to grace us with your presence.

One of us will have to make it stop.

jc

can I please pretty please play him at his game? i'd enjoy it very much

Memnoch

Originally posted by chill
The only irony here is that so much trash can be produced with so little thought.

irony - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

its ironic that your statement points directly to itself and to you, never a better case of ironing have i seen

Rock Climber

I disagree with the thread title.
Sudan is a much better example of a rogue state.

Have a good read, it's current ie happening NOW and then compare and contrast with America...
Better still as these are human beings being blasted to hell and back by their own government let me make the point that there are much worse things going on involving pseudo genocide TODAY AND RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE LIKE... that would put the U.S in the halfpenny place.
It still doesn't excuse some US activities but it puts them in perspective.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Memnoch

those quotes i posted from Noam's article refer to actual events that have transpired so... i'll await your refuation of the arguements.

Or you could just actually bother to read what I wrote and notice that I was agreeing with you to begin with.

Meh

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."

Weren't those sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council? I don't see how you can call the US a "rogue state" for following the rules of the United Nations.

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.

Those evil Americans, supplying food and medicine to Iraq! How low can they sink?

When it criticizes the US for selling food and medicine to Iraq, it's pretty clear that this article was written from the "everything the US does is evil" point of view.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Hobbes
Or you could just actually bother to read what I wrote and notice that I was agreeing with you to begin with.

]

i did read what you wrote, which seems to be in conflict with your original statement...

You automatically invalidate the argument by quoting Noam Chomsky

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
Weren't those sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council? I don't see how you can call the US a "rogue state" for following the rules of the United Nations.Those evil Americans, supplying food and medicine to Iraq! How low can they sink?

following the rule of the united nations? Honestly, did you read the second link i posted? If NOTHING else, the US has shown time and TIME AGAIN, FLAGRANT and BLATANT disregard, for international and humanitarian law, recent examples of which include guantanemo bay, shooting of iraqi reporters, indiscriminate killing of all males of military age in Fallujah, sieging the city of fallujah, etc etc etc, trying to host a coup of Venezuela. The UN is nothing more than a tool to the US, if you read through the second list that I posted you will find how the US has refused to ratify treates that it originally partnered, and most of those treates are from an obvious and commen sense standpoint view for the good of the world generally speaking. So trying to say the US was just following the "will" of the security council is quite wrong. The US does what it wants, and when it can, it gets the security council to agree with it.

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.

At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."

the rest of the article can be found here
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

now that thats dealt with....

When it criticizes the US for selling food and medicine to Iraq, it's pretty clear that this article was written from the "everything the US does is evil" point of view.

no, here is where interpretation comes in. The article isn't just criticising the "sale of food". What the article is quite clearly pointing out... is that the US created this situation so that they could profit from it. They forced the sanctions on iraq, then in a gesture of Malign benevolence granted the "oil for food programme." which the article tells you allowed them to purchase oil and sell food to a population that was suffering laregely because of their actions. Its like me burning your farm and then selling you food. Should I not be criticised for that?

also I find it intersting that when you quote my original post back at me, you conveniently deleted portions of it... I wonder why... let me perhaps quote my original post BACK to you and point out the relevent bits?

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.

Meh

Originally posted by Memnoch
So trying to say the US was just following the "will" of the security council is quite wrong.

And so is accusing the US of acting like a "rogue state" in this instance. Like them or hate them, the sanctions on Iraq were imposed by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with international law with the backing of the international community at large.

also I find it intersting that when you quote my original post back at me, you conveniently deleted portions of it... I wonder why... let me perhaps quote my original post BACK to you and point out the relevent bits?

So this just proves my point even more. On one hand the author criticizes the US for not supplying humanitarian aid to the Iraqis, on the other for supplying humanitarian aid. Seems that they're damned if they do, damned if they don't in your view. If the US had sold them those ambulances, you would no doubt be complaining about American companies "profiteering" from the sale.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Geneva Convention applies outside a situation of armed conflict/occupation, or that refusing to help repair something is the same as actively destroying it. And if the US is guilty of war crimes because of the Iraqi sanctions, then the entire United Nations is equally guilty.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
And so is accusing the US of acting like a "rogue state" in this instance. Like them or hate them, the sanctions on Iraq were imposed by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with international law with the backing of the international community at large.

but who was the chief architecht of the sanctions? More importantly, who had access to the information that is in the declassified DIA documents? The evidence CLEARLY demonstrates that the US knew FULL WELL the consequences of the sanctions and its attacks and its destruction of Iraq's water treatment fascilities. There isn't any evidence to suggest that the UN or the international community at large had access to this information, therefore the blame primarily lies with the US for being the primary architecht behind the sanctions despite knowing the conseuqences.

So this just proves my point even more. On one hand the author criticizes the US for not supplying humanitarian aid to the Iraqis, on the other for supplying humanitarian aid. Seems that they're damned if they do, damned if they don't in your view. If the US had sold them those ambulances, you would no doubt be complaining about American companies "profiteering" from the sale.

again you're deliberately mis-percieving the focus of the point.... the point is.. that the US created conditions which allowed them to profiteer.
the point the article is trying to make and that I will try to simplify for you is
1) The US profiteered from the situation it created in iraq through its bombardment and the sanctions.
2) Not only did it profiteer from the situation, but despite its profiteering it still denied Iraq access to resources VITAL to correct the problem
3) This allowed the US to continue to profiteer as the situation in Iraq worsned by the day

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Geneva Convention applies outside a situation of armed conflict/occupation, or that refusing to help repair something is the same as actively destroying it. And if the US is guilty of war crimes because of the Iraqi sanctions, then the entire United Nations is equally guilty.

i'm sorry, but this statement is absurdity in the extreme. Its little more than semantics, and poor semantics at that. Let me illustrate....

what you are ESSENTIALLY saying, is that BECAUSE the US may not have been "directly at war" with iraq, it is therefore OKAY to to circimvent the principles of humanitarian law outlined in the geneva convention and murder well over half a million iraqi's ?

Again as to your point about the UN's guilt in all this. You are still ignoring the simple and basic fact, that the US alone knew FULL WELL, the consequences of the actions it was going to take and did take. Which therefore leads to the conclusion that the U.S. did so deliberately and manipulated the UN in order to achieve its goals. The UN though involved in the situation did not seem to have access to this information.

Meh

Originally posted by Memnoch
There isn't any evidence to suggest that the UN or the international community at large had access to this information
...
Again as to your point about the UN's guilt in all this. You are still ignoring the simple and basic fact, that the US alone knew FULL WELL, the consequences of the actions it was going to take and did take. Which therefore leads to the conclusion that the U.S. did so deliberately and manipulated the UN in order to achieve its goals. The UN though involved in the situation did not seem to have access to this information.

This assertion is demonstrably false

In August 1995 the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reported that there had been a fivefold increase in child mortality in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions...

In April 1996, the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), formerly known as the Harvard Study Team, visited Iraq to assess the effect of the sanctions - imposed in August 1990 - on the civilian population...

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/alertes/srirq997.htm
As reported by the FAO/WFP Mission of 1995, the situation for the majority of the population had become deplorable and beggars, street children and undernourished children in hospitals were widely seen. This remains true today with malnutrition a serious problem throughout the whole country. Severe under-nutrition is widespread in paediatric hospitals reflecting its presence in the general population. Both marasmus and kwashiorkor were widely observed in paediatric wards by the team. These cases presented most of the classically recognised signs such as oedema in the face and feet for kwashiorkor and severe wasting, especially visible in the ribs, limbs and head for marasmus. Mothers accompanying such children in the wards were themselves undernourished. They were also rarely practising breast feeding.
...

The UN clearly knew exactly what was going on in Iraq.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
This assertion is demonstrably falseThe UN clearly knew exactly what was going on in Iraq.

lets see....

was it the UN or the US that was initiallly responsible for destruction of Iraq's water treatment facilities.

Even by your statements the UN wasn't aware of the sanctions till 95-96. Thats 5 years that the US knew what no one else did.....

your post however STILL does not change the following facts.

1) The US destroyed iraq's abilities to provide clean water to its population
2) The US WAS the chief architecht, of the sanctions, whose primary aim was to precipitate a lack of clean water.
3) Right from the beginning the US knew what the result would be, yet it acted pre-meditatedly and in cold blood. The purpose behind the US spearheading the sanctions was to deprive the iraqi people of a clean water supply. Can you say the same for the UN ?
4) The US continued to moniter the situation and was well aware the results the sanctions were having throughout '91 and definately by the end of '91. Yet it continued the situation which had it been resolved then would still have minimised the damage.

So is the UN completely blameless? Perhaps not.. but again lets not ignore a few BASIC facts......

1) The US was the CHIEF ARCHITECHT behind the sanctions.
2) The US did this FULLY AWARE of the consequences of its actions right from the start.
3) The US used and manipulated the UN from day 1 to achieve its goals.

The simple fact is that the US uses the UN as a tool. There are numerous precedents where the US has used the UN as little more than a tool for its own ends, all the while claiming it is performing the "will" of the "international community".

If you say the UN is to blame and not the US you have to show that the UN knew what it was doing from the start, that the UN destroyed the water treatment facilities in the first place.

Lets not forget that Israel has had more than twice as many UN resolutions against it than Iraq.

BattleBoar

So Memnoch, I presume you'll say the US is responsible for Saddam Hussein fleecing the UN and the Oil for Food program too? A robbery to the tune of some 10 billion USD is the fault of the US as well, no? A program expressly designed to relieve the suffering of Iraqis due to economic sanctions, sanctions there because of Saddam uncooperation with weapons inspections in the first place, was abused and allowed Saddam to retain his control of the country, gaining resources and power, all while starving the very people the program was designed to help. This, no doubt in your mind, must somehow be the fault of the US if the US is responsible for the "murders" in your mind?

Some of your argument has merit, but when I hear accusations that the US "murdered" a million Iraqi children with sanctions, I know the source is so hopelessly biased that I can't trust anything coming from it.

Memnoch

Originally posted by BattleBoar
So Memnoch, I presume you'll say the US is responsible for Saddam Hussein fleecing the UN and the Oil for Food program too? A robbery to the tune of some 10 billion USD is the fault of the US as well, no? A program expressly designed to relieve the suffering of Iraqis due to economic sanctions, sanctions there because of Saddam uncooperation with weapons inspections in the first place, was abused and allowed Saddam to retain his control of the country, gaining resources and power, all while starving the very people the program was designed to help. This, no doubt in your mind, must somehow be the fault of the US if the US is responsible for the "murders" in your mind?

nope not at all. Saddam is a bad guy, I've ALWAYS maintained that. I've no doubt that he did indeed corrupt and abuse the program, its what I'd have expected of him anyways. It will however be intersting to see the results of the investigation conducted by the UN into the corruption of the program to see who else benefited from all this.

Recent media reports have accused individuals and companies from more than 40 countries, including a senior UN official, of being involved in corruption and bribery in connection with the oil sales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3648409.stm

I find it doubtful that saddam was able to pull this off all by himself. I'm sure he had help... nevertheless he will probably get all the blame, MOST of which i'm sure he genuinely DESERVES. Nevertheless the others involved in the corruption will doubtlessly escape blameless, while he is made the scape goat for their share of the corruption as well as his own.

Some of your argument has merit, but when I hear accusations that the US "murdered" a million Iraqi children with sanctions, I know the source is so hopelessly biased that I can't trust anything coming from it.

I do not make this accusation of the murder of half a million iraqi children lightly. But rather than dismissing my arguements off-hand why don't you actually read the arguements i've presented? Tell you what, i'll give you a link. Its an article you might find intersting. Read the arguements presented there and then if you still feel the same, come back to me and tell me that these are merely wild accusations without any basis in fact? The link follows.

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

edit - oh and if the article manages to convince you, then I hope you will retract your statement regarding my "bias" as you call it. Also please read the article in its entirety before making your decision

Memnoch

oh, also to add, as I pointed out in the other thread to Rock Climber.

The UN oil-for-food program didn't actually begin till Marth 1997 when the first shipment of food was delivered.

So really, no matter how hard one tries. Its impossible to blame Saddam's corruption of the program for the death of 567,000 Iraqi children by 1995 with an estimated 4000+ being killed every month in 1996.

but kudos to rock climber for trying?

not really :P

BattleBoar

I think you should read your own sources Memnoch. Here's a quote from one of them:

"Summary
Iraq is exploiting the humanitarian issue to maintain
world sympathy and possibly to extend as long as possible the
influx of free goods. However, Iraq is capable of reversing its
current medical materiel shortages through the equitable
distribution of current stockpiles, the use of proceeds from oil
sales approved by the UN for humanitarian purchases, and the use
of an estimated U.S. $340 million frozen in the Bank for
International Settlements. "

Basically it was saying that the reason Iraqis didn't have medical supplies was because Saddam was hoarding them all and keeping them for those loyal to him.

Note, that brief was in '95. Although the Oil for Food fiasco didn't start until later, there were still oil sales approved for humanitarian aid by the UN before Oil for Food, it's just that Saddam didn't give two $hites about the civilians, so he kept all the proceeds for himself, just like he did after oil for food was started.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch

I find it doubtful that saddam was able to pull this off all by himself. I'm sure he had help... nevertheless he will probably get all the blame, MOST of which i'm sure he genuinely DESERVES. Nevertheless the others involved in the corruption will doubtlessly escape blameless, while he is made the scape goat for their share of the corruption as well as his own.

Heh!
Both in this thread and in the other you are blaming the deaths of 500,000 children completely on the U.S when patently saddam is responsible for a lot of them.
Yet with the same wind you bemoan the fact that Saddam is going to possibly get blamed for all the corruption.
Double standards, but then as you openly admitted in the other thread that you are anti american I am not surprised that you would apply more fairness in your judgement to Saddam than you would to them.

Memnoch

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I think you should read your own sources Memnoch. Here's a quote from one of them:

actually I did read them. firstly they aren't my "own" sources. My source is the analysis by Proff Nagy. Which I linked you too. Proff Nagy's analysis is BASED on DIA declassified documents which includes the quote you presented. Proff Nagy cuts through their rhetoric and points out the blatent unopposed facts that show the US actions. Yes that document is full of blame for saddam. However Proff Nagy in his analysis clearly picks out several tacit "admissions" made within the document that goes to show what the U.S. did.

Off course the DIA tried to lay the blame for events on Saddam he is their scapegoat. Its what they have always done... however, this DOES not in ANY way circumvent the following facts.. that the DIA have admitted to through these documents...

1) the US bombings destroyed iraqi infrastructure vital to clean water supply in iraq.

and i quote

"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."

2) The US government knew the consequences of failure of clean water to reach the Iraqi people.

"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."

3) The US deliberately stopped Iraq from being able to provide clean water through...

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

so the US used UN sanctions to embargo cholrine which is needed to purify the water, despite knowing what this will result in...

4) The US does everything in its power to cover every angle, to make sure Iraq cannot aquire the clean water that it needs...

"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants.

so no chlorine, no clean water...

"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."

so no water treatment plants, the iraqi's can't repair these the US knows this, yet they are spear heading sanctions that would prevent the iraqi's to replace these parts, while knowing that shortage will result in increased insidences if not epidemics of disease.

despite the fact that it was the US that was responsible for the destruction of the infrastructure...

it was the US led sanctions that stopped iraq from aquiring the parts needed to repair this infrastructure and the chlorine needed to treat the water...

they happily make saddam their scape goat and try to lay the blame on his shoulders.....

"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."

Nice attempt by them.. but it doesn't change ANY of the above facts that I mentioned.

The simple fact is that the bombings + sanctions resulted in a supply of clean water that was 5% or the original supply. Go ask any doctor what this will do to the civillian population of a country.

I find it also ironic, that in true dismissive fashion you tell me to "read my own sources". But not once did you actually offer a counter arguement to any of the specific points that Proff Nagy makes in his analysis.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Heh!
Both in this thread and in the other you are blaming the deaths of 500,000 children completely on the U.S when patently saddam is responsible for a lot of them.

really? how so? The fact is that the level of clean water supply in iraq was reduced to 5% of its original levels due to bombings + sanctions... how is saddam responsible for that? Saddam is responsible for a LOT of crimes, and he has committed a LOT of atrocities. However in THIS case, the majority of the blame lies with the US.

They knew what they were doing, and this is APPARENT from declassified DIA documents, which would be obvious to you if you actually bothered to take the time to READ the link i posted.

Yet with the same wind you bemoan the fact that Saddam is going to possibly get blamed for all the corruption.
Double standards,

really? I commented on the statement made in the BBC article. That media outlets were indicating that more than just Saddam was involved in the corruption. Its intersting that you choose to IGNORE the fact that i mention that in my opinion Saddam deserves a MAJOR portion of the blame. But as the article says, its possible that other people are involved. The fact is that any thing that has gone wrong in Iraq, its always blamed on Saddam...

The fact ALSO is, that Saddam IS actually in LARGE part responsible for MOST of the things that have gone wrong.

however the bombings + sanctions on iraq wasn't his doing, that was the US, and in THAT particular instance, the blame lies MAINLY with the US.

Its a simple question, if the US had NOT destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, and then led sanctions that prevented Iraq from aquiring the parts needed to repair it or the chlorine needed to treat the water, KNOWING FULL WELL That this WOULD result in EPIDEMICS of water borne diseases, would those 567,000 children still have died?

No matter how much you try to wriggle or blame saddam the answer to the above question remains a resounding NO.

but then as you openly admitted in the other thread that you are anti american I am not surprised that you would apply more fairness in your judgement to Saddam than you would to them.

please outline where I have been "unfair" specifically?

I blame the US because a) it KNEW the effects of the bombings + the sanctions, and this is OBVIOUS if you take a look at the declassified documents.
b) it was the US that bombed and destroyed the infrastructure
c) it was the US that spearheaded the sanctions against iraq.

For one moment, I will agree with you... lets for a moment say, that the US did not want to cause the deaths of those children, that this was "unintentional"

In that case I ask you yet ANOTHER simple question... KNOWING FULL WELL the effect the sanctions and bombings would have on the clean water supply of iraq, and knowing FULL WELL the effects that a LACK of clean water would have on the civillian populace....
if the US was intersted in saving lives, it could easily have lobbied for allowing iraq to gain these essential materials, and for exclusion of these materials from the sanctions...

Lets also not forget the the US possess a Veto, which it has not hesitated to exercise on COUNTLESS occasions when it comes to Israel EVEN when Israel is blatently in the wrong....

Memnoch

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Basically it was saying that the reason Iraqis didn't have medical supplies was because Saddam was hoarding them all and keeping them for those loyal to him.

also note
medical supplies is not = clean water

Hobbes

Originally posted by Memnoch
]

i did read what you wrote, which seems to be in conflict with your original statement...

No. That was in reply to you bumping the post back up with the "No replies" comment.

Originally posted by Meh
When it criticizes the US for selling food and medicine to Iraq, it's pretty clear that this article was written from the "everything the US does is evil" point of view.

Point was with Iraq, they weren't selling the food. They were getting cheap oil for it. Heck the US was getting more oil from Iraq then before (or other countries) especially just before the invasion.

Of course there are a whole range of other coutries who would happily do the same thing. The difference is they don't spout out to the world about being the "Moral compass" For others.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
really? how so? The fact is that the level of clean water supply in iraq was reduced to 5% of its original levels due to bombings + sanctions... how is saddam responsible for that? Saddam is responsible for a LOT of crimes, and he has committed a LOT of atrocities. However in THIS case, the majority of the blame lies with the US.

Quite simple really, Saddam was the power on the ground, he had the power to fullfill the UNSC's wishes and end sanctions.
You seem to be approaching this from the angle that only the UNSC should have moved by ending the sanctions unilaterally and that is one sided and unfair.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Memnoch
I find it also ironic, that in true dismissive fashion you tell me to "read my own sources". But not once did you actually offer a counter arguement to any of the specific points that Proff Nagy makes in his analysis.

Why should I read someone else's analysis of the documents? I'll read the documents and draw my own conclusions, thank you. And from what I read, guess what, I don't reach his conclusions. I'm afraid your beloved Dr. Nagy is far from the slam dunk case you present him to be.

And even if his conclusions are right? So the US knew that poor water facilities were causing problems for the Iraqi people? So what. Even if they did know, what was the US supposed to do about it? They tried to allow some food shipments and aid shipments to help the people but Saddam just fleeced all the money. The damage was done and the sanctions were in place because Saddam invaded Kuwait and were left there to try to get his cooperation. He bears full responsibility for any deaths that occured as a result of his actions full stop.