America - a Rogue State

Memnoch

Originally posted by BattleBoar
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.

so basically what you're saying that though you cannot refute a single point made in his arguements you'll dismiss it anyways because you don't reach the same "conclusions". You can reach any conlusion you like but that doesn't change the fact of the matter that those documents make certain admissions which prove Nagy's case. You have failed to refute a single one of those admissions, all you do is dismiss the arguement off hand. You can draw any conclusion you like, but that DOES NOT change the admissions that are made in the arguements.

I'm afraid your beloved Dr. Nagy is far from the slam dunk case you present him to be.

hmm it seems that he is quite the slam dunk case as you prove to me with each post you make. Simply because you are yet to refute a SINGLE point made in the article... why because you are clearly incapable of doing so. Every single post you have simply dismissed his arguements... again lets see some actual counter arguement. If you can't provide that its clear that his arguements are superior.

And even if his conclusions are right? So the US knew that poor water facilities were causing problems for the Iraqi people?

again... let me point out the misrepresentation in your statements here.

His conclusion isn't about what the US knew or didn't know. What the US knew or didn't know is APPARENT from the DIA documents.
The US KNEW (and this is a fact) the effects that a lack of clean water would have and then WAR having on the Iraqi's right from '91. Even though you made a weak attempt to try and dismiss this FACT as some kind of conjecture on Nagy's part. The truth is there is no conjecture here, as Nagy clearly quotes the declassified documents on this. And i've quoted relevent sections several times already in this and the other thread.

His conclusion is how the US's actions constitute a breach of International Humanitarian law. And so far you actually haven't addressed this arguement at all. You've been trying to (very unsuccessfully) dodge the issue by pretending that the DIA somehow didn't make those admissions by saying that its a matter of "Interpretation" when the basic facts are plain for all to see and don't require any interpretation.

So what. Even if they did know, what was the US supposed to do about it?

Again. from this statement I can only reach two possible conclusions. Either you are deliberately trying to mislead the arguement by pretending to be ignorant. Or you really are just ignorant. I've pointed out to you on several occasions what the US did know, its not a matter of "even if they did know". This is not an issue thats open to debate because its clear from the DIA documents that they DID know.

And just to refresh your memory as it seems to be decidedly poor on this issue.. the DIA knew the following things....

1) The BOMBING of iraqi infrastructure during the gulf war did result in lack of clean water supply. So yes THEY the US are responsible for this. No one forced them to bomb civillian infrastructure in Iraq. No matter how much rhetoric you talk about Kuwait. What the hell do iraqi water treatment plants have to do with it? Again perhaps you are UNAWARE of the geneva convention, which forbids the destruction of such facilities, essential to the native population.

and i'll quote the DIA documents on this...

"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."

so here they have clearly admitted, that the damage to infrastructure due to bombings has resulted in a "degradation" of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution and electricity and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. and the increased incidence of disease is attibutable to these factors. So THEY CAUSED the situation. it didn't exist before they went and bombed the CIVILLIAN infrastructure.


What they ALSO knew was that ......

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 they know that BECAUSE the Iraqi infrastructure has been destroyed, Iraq NEEDS replacement parts to ensure a clean water supply. And Iraq NEEDS Chlorine. They also know that Iraq cannot REPLACE either of these parts due to sanctions.

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

So lets summarise for a moment what the DIA KNOW from their OWN documents..

1) The bombings (by america) have destroyed civillian infrastructure that is essential to maintaining a clean water supply
2) Without a clean water supply disease would spread and epidimics were likely to occur.
3) Iraq was being prevented from gaining aquiring chlorine and the much needed repair parts in order to restore its clean water supply.

These above 3 points are ESTABLISHED FACT. AS ADMITTED by the DIA declassified documents.

NOW we arrive at the CONCLUSIONs drawn from these facts. The few basic conclusions that don't require ANY speculation are simple.

1) The US withheld this information from the UNSC. There is no evidence to support that the US shared this vital information. Would the other countries in the UNSC have allowed these sanctions to happen if they had access to this information, probably not?

2) The US despite knowing all this was the chief architecht of the sanctions.

Now we reach the point of drawing more complex conclusions from all this information.

Another established fact is that the US has disregarded UN resolutions WHENEVER it has suited it, and has veto'd countless resolutions.

So my point is.... that since
1) the US was responsible for destroying the civillian infrastructure
2) the US knew how vital this infrastructure was for the civillian population of iraq
3) the US knew that epidemics would rage accross the country due to all this.

Having all this information before them.. the US COULD have.

1) Lobbied the UNSC to exclude these items vital to human survival. Not only did the US fail to act, it actively WITHHELD this CRUCIAL information from the UNSC. Even lobbying is a strong word. The US constantly tries to manipulates the UNSC to its will. By bribing the weaker temporary members who happen to sit on the council at the time and threatening trade consequences against the more permenant members. A good example of this is when France and Germany decided to abstain from a recent vote rather than use their veto, which would have caused the US considerable embarressment.

2) Failing this the US could have used its VETO as a threat, in order to insure these VITAL supplies were availible to iraq. The US is not squemish to using its VETO. In fact it has used its veto countless times to protect illegal and immoral Israeli actions. Yet knowing full well that epidemics would rage accross iraq, the US did nothing. Even though it knew that the epidemics would be caused by ITS destructino of iraqi infrastructure.


You can talk rubbish about Saddam all you like, and try to use him as a scapegoat... but the following facts remain...
1) 567,000 iraqi children died between 1991 and 1995
2) These deaths occured because of a degredation in Iraq's clean water supply
3) The US knew that a lack of clean water would result in epidemics of disease
4) Iraq's clean water supply was originally destroyed by the US bombing civillian infrastructure in Iraq.
5) Iraq was unable to repair the infrastucture, due to sanctions and unable to use chlorine to purify the water due to sanctions.
6) The US knew that the iraqi people needed this to survive
7) Not only did the US do nothing to try and prevent it, the US was the chief architech behind the sanctions....

The US is therefore responsible for the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children between 1991 and 1995.

You can talk about "food shipments" all you like, they've got nothing to do with the following facts as I have summarised.

Now if you choose to reply, please be so kind as to attempt to actually refute these arguements rather than simply dismissing them, as I have been kind enough to specifically refute your arguements rather than just dismissing them off-hand.

Originally posted by Memnoch

You can talk rubbish about Saddam all you like, and try to use him as a scapegoat... but the following facts remain...
1) 567,000 iraqi children died between 1991 and 1995
2) These deaths occured because of a degredation in Iraq's clean water supply
3) The US knew that a lack of clean water would result in epidemics of disease
4) Iraq's clean water supply was originally destroyed by the US bombing civillian infrastructure in Iraq.
5) Iraq was unable to repair the infrastucture, due to sanctions and unable to use chlorine to purify the water due to sanctions.
6) The US knew that the iraqi people needed this to survive
7) Not only did the US do nothing to try and prevent it, the US was the chief architech behind the sanctions....

The US is therefore responsible for the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children between 1991 and 1995.

I've put the last bit in bold because I don't see where you have absolved Saddam Hussein of blame here.
You cannot say that the U.S was responsible when Saddam could have ended the sanctions which were imposed by the world community and could have been removed with his co-operation..
And you certainly cannot say the U.S is 100% responsible given as has been pointed out to you by posters above Saddam was in the know also as regards what was needed.
What actions did he take ( being the boss ) to alleviate the problem?
You are forgetting the mitigating circumstances.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
You cannot say that the U.S was responsible when Saddam could have ended the sanctions which were imposed by the world community and could have been removed with his co-operation..

actually you are wrong, and I can say this. Because according to international law, it is ILLEGAL for the US to use sanctions to hold the civillian population of iraq hostage through destruction of its water supply. Don't use the "comply with demands" scapegoat arguement because it does not apply. The simple fact is that they CANNOT deprive the iraqi civillians for essential supplies, no matter WHAT they are trying to achieve, even if it is "cooperation" from Saddam...

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."

so you see now why your above arguement is invalid? Because the Geneva Convention SPECIFICALLY states so.

And you certainly cannot say the U.S is 100% responsible given as has been pointed out to you by posters above Saddam was in the know also as regards what was needed.
What actions did he take ( being the boss ) to alleviate the problem?

Saddam did not destroy the infrastrucutre
and it wasnt Saddam that prevented the importation of chlorine or much needed replacement parts.

These essential items could easily have been excluded from the sanctions. In 1991 evidence shows that only the US was clearly aware of the effect of these sanctions through the DIA's documents. The US withheld this information in order to propagate the sanctions for as long as possible, resulting in the deaths.

You are forgetting the mitigating circumstances.

the mitigating circumstances are IRRELEVENT. Whatever the "mitigating" circumstances.. the US cannot... "attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"

how hard is it for you people to understand this simple point?

You cannot say that the U.S was responsible when Saddam could have ended the sanctions which were imposed by the world community and could have been removed with his co-operation..

Actually he can. What he shouldn't say is that the US were 100% responsible for what happened. Nobody and no organisation has 100% control over a situation. The US is responsible for the intentional bombing of infrastructure in relation to Water treatment, and Saddam is responsible for failing to fold to US/UN pressure. Just as the US are responsible for not replacing Saddam after Desert Storm.

No one person or country is 100% responsible for the deaths. BUT, Saddam & the US had major roles in causing those deaths to happen.

Memnoch

Originally posted by klaz
Actually he can. What he shouldn't say is that the US were 100% responsible for what happened. Nobody and no organisation has 100% control over a situation. The US is responsible for the intentional bombing of infrastructure in relation to Water treatment, and Saddam is responsible for failing to fold to US/UN pressure. Just as the US are responsible for not replacing Saddam after Desert Storm.

No one person or country is 100% responsible for the deaths. BUT, Saddam & the US had major roles in causing those deaths to happen.

actually klaz... according to the geneva convention.... the US cannot shift the blame to Saddam's non-compliance....

"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."

again i'll mention the most important bit here...

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

this is why I say the US is responsible. They cannot blame saddam's non-compliance, because they had no right to do this in the first place.

lastly I won't say the US is 100% exactly responsible, because its impossible to say that. However, just as Saddam was MAINLY responsible for corrupting the oil for food program, it is the US that is MAINLY responsible for the deaths of these children. The vast majority of the blame lies with them. Saddam's non-compliance isn't an issue here even though the US wants it to be

actually klaz... according to the geneva convention.... the US cannot shift the blame to Saddam's non-compliance....

But what are you looking for? A legal court to bring International Law against the US? Not going to happen. So you're posting here from a moral standpoint, and as a moral standpoint, its not a shifting of blame. I don't like the US, I don't Trust them, and quite frankly, I think they're more dangerous than Iraq ever was, BUT, I'm not going to assign 100% of blame to them unless its deserved, and its not.

Originally posted by Memnoch
actually you are wrong, and I can say this. Because according to international law, it is ILLEGAL for the US to use sanctions to hold the civillian population of iraq hostage through destruction of its water supply.

I find that quite funny because they were UN sanctions so you are saying the UN acted illegally
Also how do you absolve Saddam of his part in this, he was in the driving seat in Iraq.

the mitigating circumstances are IRRELEVENT. Whatever the "mitigating" circumstances.. the US cannot... "attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"

Oh don't go saying that to a judge, you'll have us all condemned
The fact of the matter is that Saddam could have and should have brought an end to the sanctions by complying with the conditions for ending them.

By the way as a point of information, did the U.S deliberately bomb those instalations everywhere, was it their mission to do so?
Were there briefings after the sortee's explaining what was hit or did they suggest at the briefings that they thought they had targetted something else?
These are also mitigating circumstanses given that this particular war (GW1) received the full authorisation of the UNSC.
And lastly to fill in some more of the mitigating circumstanses, were the sortee's that took out the water facilities during the war or after the war?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
I find that quite funny because they were UN sanctions so you are saying the UN acted illegally

SIGH, please READ above in this post... I've already explained why it is the US that takes the primary blame for the sanctions as it was the US that had DIRECT knowledge of the effects and withheld this information from the UN.

I really wish people would stop using the UN as an excuse. The US has disregarded the UN when it has suited it, and it has bribed and coerced members of the UN security council when it has suited it. The US was the chef architecht of the sanctions.. all semantics aside.

Also how do you absolve Saddam of his part in this, he was in the driving seat in Iraq.

what part?

Oh don't go saying that to a judge, you'll have us all condemned
The fact of the matter is that Saddam could have and should have brought an end to the sanctions by complying with the conditions for ending them.

what saddam should have/could have done is irrelevent. the genva convention speicficially PROHIBITS the destruction of iraq's water supply which occured through 1) bombings and 2) sanctions. FOR ANY MOTIVE

even the motive of getting saddam to "disarm" or "comply" is not good enough.

By the way as a point of information, did the U.S deliberately bomb those instalations everywhere, was it their mission to do so?

nice red herring... do you honestly seriously expect the US to admit to specifically bombing these targets intentionally? Nope they are never going to do that, and there is no other way of finding out is there? However we do know that the US did everything in its power to get these sanctions in place and deny iraqi's clean water, knowing full well the effects it would have, and from this we can logically and reasonably conclude that this was their modus operandi all along.

Were there briefings after the sortee's explaining what was hit or did they suggest at the briefings that they thought they had targetted something else?
These are also mitigating circumstanses given that this particular war (GW1)

Again, the FACT remains is that the installations didn't blow up by themselves. The US blew them up. If it had really done so accidentally, then it should have allowed the repair and reconstruction of these facilities neccessary to basic human survival.

received the full authorisation of the UNSC.

again, as I've said many a time before, the US has many many times acted independently of the UN, not only that but it is KNOWN to have bribed and co-erced UN members to suit its interests on many occasions.

And lastly to fill in some more of the mitigating circumstanses, were the sortee's that took out the water facilities during the war or after the war?

how is this relevent? the fact is that it was the US that did the bombing... but from the information in these documents I would judge that this occurred probably mainly during the war.

Memnoch

Originally posted by klaz
But what are you looking for? A legal court to bring International Law against the US? Not going to happen. So you're posting here from a moral standpoint, and as a moral standpoint, its not a shifting of blame. I don't like the US, I don't Trust them, and quite frankly, I think they're more dangerous than Iraq ever was, BUT, I'm not going to assign 100% of blame to them unless its deserved, and its not.

i'm not looking for anything m8. I'm just trying to point out to these people that the US is mainly responsible for the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children..

no I don't expect the US will ever pay for these crimes, but it is nevertheless important that we document and spread public awareness of these crimes.

Again i posted just above you, its impossible to say that the US is 100% responsible. However I would say that the vast majority of the blame lies with the US...

just as the majority of the blame for using WMD again Iran lies with Saddam. Yes the US provided him with the weapons and showed him how to use them so they are to blame to, but the majority of the blame is saddam's. In this case saddam's proportion of the blame is less than the US's above because Saddam didn't show the US how to bomb iraq nor supply them with the weapons to do so.

From a moral stand point, the US comes even closer to deserving 100% of the blame...
the reason for this?
they knew all along what they were doing, and they did this/let it happen, despite claiming to be the champions of humanity and freedom.

Memnoch

also it really looks like we have drifted very far off the main topic..

which is that through its actions America has shown itself to be a Rogue State and should be viewed as such.....

even if this particular incident was ignored... it doesn't change the rest of the argument

Originally posted by Memnoch
SIGH, please READ above in this post... I've already explained why it is the US that takes the primary blame for the sanctions as it was the US that had DIRECT knowledge of the effects and withheld this information from the UN.

The u.s takes primary blame for the sanctions aswell
I presume you mean for the effect of the sanctions.
With respect we'll have to disagree there,if I hired Saddam to run Iraq during the 90's I'd have sacked him long before the decade was out, for gross negligence

i'm not looking for anything m8. I'm just trying to point out to these people that the US is mainly responsible for the deaths of 567,000 iraqi children..

so you have moved slightly from being responsible to being mainly responsible.
I'd disagree on the proportionality given who was the boss of Iraq.
But then friends often disagree*

*=term of endearment I've never actually met you

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
The u.s takes primary blame for the sanctions aswell
I presume you mean for the effect of the sanctions.
With respect we'll have to disagree there,if I hired Saddam to run Iraq during the 90's I'd have sacked him long before the decade was out, for gross negligence

ironically enough it was the US that put saddam in power, and were perfectly happy keeping him there and supporting him as long as he was willing to play ball. Hell they even supplied him with WMD.

so you have moved slightly from being responsible to being mainly responsible.
I'd disagree on the proportionality given who was the boss of Iraq.
But then friends often disagree*

*=term of endearment I've never actually met you

not really but people insist on semantics, so i'm clarifying my position. Also as I've pointed out, being the boss of iraq isn't really relevent IN THIS CASE. Sure its relelvent when you begin to talk about the oil for food program, or the gassing the kurds. However in THIS case, the cause of the deaths was the bombings + sanctions. Even though the "motive" of this was to get saddam to comply, it was still an illegal act by the US and therefore saddam isn't the one responsible.

ALLGOOD

Look, its pretty simple - America is the most powerful country in the world and the worlds only superpower. Just be grateful their not a bunch of Nazi's who try to destroy the world. All this America bashing is childish.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Also as I've pointed out, being the boss of iraq isn't really relevent IN THIS CASE.

Again I disagree, it could not be irrelevant.
Either Saddam could have saved his people or he could not.
If he obeyed the UNSC, the sanctions would have been gone and no issues.
He had the authority to bring an end the sanctions and he refused to do so.
Thats an open and shut case as regards the neglect of his people there and for what, his ego? or to maintain his 100% vote?
If that neglect wasnt there, the people wouldn't have died in such numbers.

nice red herring... do you honestly seriously expect the US to admit to specifically bombing these targets intentionally? Nope they are never going to do that, and there is no other way of finding out is there? However we do know that the US did everything in its power to get these sanctions in place and deny iraqi's clean water, knowing full well the effects it would have, and from this we can logically and reasonably conclude that this was their modus operandi all along.

you admit that you don't know the answer to the question I posed either, so you dismiss it as a red herring like all the other mitigating circumstances.
I'll be asking counsel to delay the hearing untill we can get a different judge to hear all the facts if your on the bench
you see your central allegation depends on what the U.S intentions were and what information they had when they did their sortee's.
We're without that but we are not without the evidence of the mitigating circumstances ie Saddam was in contol on the ground, he had the authority to obey the UNSC and thus have the sanctions removed.
He didn't but instead he followed a course of extreme neglect towards the welfare of his people.
Thats a clear cut modus opperandi on behalf of Saddam, he wanted to continue to disobey international will despite the consequenses for his people.
The modus operandi of the U.S bombing sortee's on the other hand isn't clearly what you suggest it is at all, it's an opinion and not a fact.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
Again I disagree, it could not be irrelevant.
Either Saddam could have saved his people or he could not.
If he obeyed the UNSC, the sanctions would have been gone and no issues.
He had the authority to bring an end the sanctions and he refused to do so.
Thats an open and shut case as regards the neglect of his people there and for what, his ego? or to maintain his 100% vote?
If that neglect wasnt there, the people wouldn't have died in such numbers.

you can disagree all you like, but the geneva convention FORBIDS the use of sanctions in this manner, NO MATTER WHAT saddam did. How hard is it for you to grasp thats? Its wrong, illegal, immoral, whatever saddam did, they cannot hold the iraqi civillians hostage in this way.. do you understand this?

you admit that you don't know the answer to the question I posed either, so you dismiss it as a red herring like all the other mitigating circumstances.
I'll be asking counsel to delay the hearing untill we can get a different judge to hear all the facts if your on the bench

no I admit that the US will never admit what it did. this is obvious to anyone possessing commen sense. Therefore we must use the evidence we have availible to us to reach our convlusions Logically and reasonably which is what I've done.

Again for a moment I will follow your logic. Say that Saddam is responsible because he could have complied with the sanctions and prevented with the situations. by your own logic then, its the US thats ultimately responsible because they put saddam in dictatorial control of the country and supported his regime for many many years Do you see how flawed and circular your logic is?

Nevertheless, history shows that your arguement is wrong even if we take it to be logical. What happened when Saddam DID comply with the UN demands? After the UN inspectors declared that Iraq was fully cooperating and that they had full access everywhere in iraq, and couldn't find any WMD, the Coalition of Terror, invaded and occupied the country which has resulted in the death of even more people... so now prove to me that the result would have been different if he had complied earlier?

Again, you can "disagree" all you want. But the geneva convention is QUITE UNAMBIGUOUS on this... the sanctions were wrong and SHOULD NOT have been imposed, GIVEN that the US KNEW they would result in this kind of crises. Remember only the US had this info till 1995 according to the DIA's reports...

you see your central allegation depends on what the U.S intentions were and what information they had when they did their sortee's.

no my central allegation depends on the fact that the US knew the effects the sanctions would have in wake of the bombings... as is clear by DIA documents..

We're without that but we are not without the evidence of the mitigating circumstances ie Saddam was in contol on the ground, he had the authority to obey the UNSC and thus have the sanctions removed.

again saddam's compliance or lack thereof is not a valid motive for rendering iraq's clean water supply useless according to the genva convention. Also what proof do you ahve that had he "complied" they would have backed down, because from what I can see, when he did "comply" all they did was invade the country.

He didn't but instead he followed a course of extreme neglect towards the welfare of his people.

Which wouldn't have been possible without the sanctions? again stop making me repeat this please... the geneva convention is specific on this... you can argue it all you like, it does NOT change the convention.

Thats a clear cut modus opperandi on behalf of Saddam, he wanted to continue to disobey international will despite the consequenses for his people.
The modus operandi of the U.S bombing sortee's on the other hand isn't clearly what you suggest it is at all, it's an opinion and not a fact.

International will as you call it cannot be used to blackmail in this way, its illegal. Modus operandi of the US bombings is quite clear from the evidence that has SINCE followed...

again I ask you...

if the US did blow those buildings up "accidentaly" then when it realised that hundreds of thousands of iraqi's could die as a result, why did it specifically not exclude those vital items from the sanctions?

ESPECIALLY when the genvea convention FORBIDS this exact behaviour.

you keep repeating that "saddam is responsible for the sanctions", but no matter how many times you say it, it does not change the established fact, that the sanctions themselves were illegal under the geneva convention in the first place.

So what saddam did or didn't do doesn't come into it, as the sanctions shouldn't have been there in the FIRST place.

Originally posted by Memnoch
you can disagree all you like, but the geneva convention FORBIDS the use of sanctions in this manner, NO MATTER WHAT saddam did. How hard is it for you to grasp thats? Its wrong, illegal, immoral, whatever saddam did, they cannot hold the iraqi civillians hostage in this way.. do you understand this?

sorry, who imposed the sanctions again?
ah the U.N I see
Who was more aware than any of what his people needed and who was capable of bringing about the conditions to save his people?
Ah Saddam
What happened, he went on to let the sanctions proceed in total neglect of his people and for what?

by your own logic then, its the US thats ultimately responsible because they put saddam in dictatorial control of the country and supported his regime for many many years Do you see how flawed and circular your logic is?

Nope.
Saddam was in control, he had the power, that cannot be ignored in the analysis of the deaths due to the sanctions.

GIVEN that the US KNEW they would result in this kind of crises. Remember only the US had this info till 1995 according to the DIA's reports...

again in your analysis why do you keep ignoring Saddams negligence in not complying with the wishes of the UNSC?

no my central allegation depends on the fact that the US knew the effects the sanctions would have in wake of the bombings... as is clear by DIA documents..

Same question, why do you ignore Saddams role in allowing the sanctions to continue? and secondly why do you insist on assuming the unknown to back up your case of U.S intent?
Did the U.S go about bombing raids in Iraq during GW1 with the intention of taking out all the water facilities?

the geneva convention is specific on this... you can argue it all you like, it does NOT change the convention.

I am not argu'ing whats in the Geneva convention at all, I just want you to show me the intent on the part of the U.S and also to take account of the mitigating circumstances other wise its disingenius of you to go about saying that the U.S murdered 500,000 children like you did
here

if the US did blow those buildings up "accidentaly" then when it realised that hundreds of thousands of iraqi's could die as a result, why did it specifically not exclude those vital items from the sanctions?

I can't get into the heads of those that planned or drew up the workings of the sanctions but your question is as valid as my own regarding Saddams negligence on not complying with the conditions for ending them in the full knowledge of what was happening.
Where we disagree is on the proportionality of the blame

Memnoch

sorry but i see no point in repeating myself... i've made my points in both posts

the intent of the US is clear in its actions

it new the consequences of the sanctions on the iraqi civillians by the end of 1991, this is clear from the declassified docs...

Yet it went ahead with its plans..

stop using the UN as an excuse, the US has and will act independently of it when it so chooses.

the US had the information in 91 about what the sanctions would do

the UN did not

hence the US is to blame for misleading and using the UN to commit its crimes...

again, the intent is clear.. they knew what was happening but did nothing except make things worse ...

the intent is clear... they withheld this information from the UN...

the intent is clear... they withheld this information from the UN...

The intent is not clear at all as all you have shown is that the U.S didn't inform the UN of what was bombed or what could have been bombed,
that doesn't mean they didn't know by other means.
Saddam is not excused for not acting to protect his people.
your allegation of murder also actually assumes that the UN did not know that the water facilities were bombed.
If they did any de-classified inormation coming out of the U.S is immaterial.
If they didn't, Saddam didn't tell them, he would appear to have sat back in his chair smoking his pipe while disease spread and ignored his duty to help.
What was the best and most immediate way to help?
Complying with the terms to end sanctions- exactly

Memnoch

no the US withheld information about the consequences of the sanctions...

this information was in the classified DIA documents. and by the end of 91 it was obvious that epidemics would claim many lives.. yet the US kept this information to itself.. why???

because its what they wanted, it had been their intent from the start

again you have provided no proof to back up your claim that complying with the terms would have ended the sanctions, as history has shown, all complying with the terms did was to get the axis of diesel to invade.

Memnoch

and also you keep ignoring the geneva convention... doesn't matter what saddam did /didn't do... these sanctions are forbidden under the convention.. and as we know only the US was aware by the end of 91 what effect these sanctions would have.. and that these sanctions would be in breech of the convention..

yet it withheld this info from the UN

Originally posted by Memnoch

again you have provided no proof to back up your claim that complying with the terms would have ended the sanctions, as history has shown, all complying with the terms did was to get the axis of diesel to invade.

Are you saying that if Saddam had complied with the terms for ending sanctions, they wouldn't have ended?
Wheres that coming from?
History is clear about one thing, all Saddam ever did was play charades with the UN in the 90's rather than make any serious attempt to have the sanctions lifted.
And that was at the expense of his people.

and as we know only the US was aware by the end of 91 what effect these sanctions would have.. and that these sanctions would be in breech of the convention..

Come now memnoch, absolutely nobody outside Iraq knew that the waterplants were bombed?
You have no evidence either to suggest that the sortee's mission was to deliberately destroy water plants,if you do please provide that link.
Otherwise your claims of Geneva convention breaking are on thin ice, so thin in fact the waters warm.
If you can, I'll gladly re proportion some more of the blame from my point of view, but I won't be letting Saddam of the hook for his negligence-no sir eeeee!

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Are you saying that if Saddam had complied with the terms for ending sanctions, they wouldn't have ended?
Wheres that coming from?

I dont know if he's saying that. What he is saying though is that the nature of the sanctions was in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

Look - if the US had decided that nuking Iraq was the sanction to take, would you still insist that it was Saddam's responsibility that his country was now a glowing ember? I somehow doubt it - I'm guessing that you recognise that Saddam's intransigence did not give, nor should not have given, the US a carte-blanche in deciding what to do.

The sanctions they implemented were apparently in contravention of the GC. I say "apparently", because the US generally choose a policy of targetting "dual use" facilities which they can argue are legitimate military targets. Its a matter of perspective where I disagree with the US stance, but I can understand it.

History is clear about one thing, all Saddam ever did was play charades with the UN in the 90's rather than make any serious attempt to have the sanctions lifted.
And that was at the expense of his people.

Then why did the weapons inspectors get such a good job done? Why was Saddam disarmed of more weapons in the 90s by the UN weapons inspectors then by any other single operation? Why was this such a failure when the main argument for its failure - the continued existence of WMDs in Iraq - has yet to be shown to have any real truth behind it????

One could also ask why the US had spies amongst the weapons inspectors? Why did they risk the success of an operation, the failure of which they knew would require the sanctions to continue and possibly even lead to war.

Come now memnoch, absolutely nobody outside Iraq knew that the waterplants were bombed?

I believe they did, and I believe that objections were raised. Just as objections were raised to the no-fly zone, and a number of other activities. However, not enough objections were raised.

You have no evidence either to suggest that the sortee's mission was to deliberately destroy water plants,if you do please provide that link.

I don't think its unreasonable to assume that hte world's most technologically capable military was able to hit what it had targetted, especially when not in a time of war.

I mean, you're suggesting that we should never accept any attack as being correctly targetted until we have a confirmation - through reliable sources - that the desired target was what was hit. By your logic, should we not be saying that every single of the thousands of missiles fired should be considered to have missed its target until we can find a link where the US confirms that the missile in question was on target????

Generally, does it not work the other way around - that we assume the targetted object was what was hit unless we have reason to suspect otherwise?

If you can, I'll gladly re proportion some more of the blame from my point of view, but I won't be letting Saddam of the hook for his negligence-no sir eeeee!

Its not a case of letting Saddam off the hook. Its a case of not allowing others off the hook because we've already identified one party with serious guilt.

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Memnoch
so basically what you're saying that though you cannot refute a single point made in his arguements you'll dismiss it anyways because you don't reach the same "conclusions". You can reach any conlusion you like but that doesn't change the fact of the matter that those documents make certain admissions which prove Nagy's case. You have failed to refute a single one of those admissions, all you do is dismiss the arguement off hand. You can draw any conclusion you like, but that DOES NOT change the admissions that are made in the arguements.

So what you're saying is that you're a complete muppet who is perfectly willing to blindly follow someone else's opinion about a set of documents you couldn't be bothered to read so long as it falls in line with your own preconcieved biases?

Try reading this:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/23

and this:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

Then try drawing your own conclusion ( no cheating this time )

Originally posted by bonkey

Its not a case of letting Saddam off the hook. Its a case of not allowing others off the hook because we've already identified one party with serious guilt.

jc

Well I wasn't letting the U.S off the hook either, I was just making the point that laying the blame exclusively and solely with the U.S which is what memnoch did at the start was disagreeable.

As regards the weapons inspectors doing a good job, of course they did, but under duress.
If there had have been full co-operation, the sanctions would have been lifted eons ago and less deaths as a result, thats firmly and squarely Saddams part of the blame and a significant part at that.

Generally, does it not work the other way around - that we assume the targetted object was what was hit unless we have reason to suspect otherwise?

I was asking for proof of intent, in other words, did the U.S specifically target water plants as water plants.
I could go down the road of conspiracy theory in the absence of that evidence and suggest they they knowingly targetted every water plant that they could find with the intention of making sanctions strong enough to have as many children poisoned as possible, but I think thats stretching the elastic band to snap point.

Certainly proportion some of the blame on a botched operation on the U.S but all of it?
Taking Saddam out of the equasion when he had so much control was what I was objecting to.
I don't believe you did that Bonkey but at the start memnoch certainly did by saying the U.S murdered 567,000 children without taking into account the mitigating circumstances.
In fairness to him, he did shift slightly during the debate from a position of all the blame being with the U.S to one of most of the blame being with the U.S.

Given that for most of the 90's Clinton was in power and not Dubya or his Dad and given Clintons proven will to use U.S forces in his time in office for worthwhile exercises in Somalia and Bosnia ( albeit with mixed results ) I'd like to think that malice was less of a forethought in his mind with respect to Iraqi children than it was with Saddam when comparing their records.
And it's on that basis, I lay my grounds for my disagreement with memnoch on the proportionality of the blame for the deaths.
I'd lay significantly more of it on Saddam.

If we were discussing here Dubya's record and modus operandi I'd most probably take a different position, but we are not.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Well I wasn't letting the U.S off the hook either, I was just making the point that laying the blame exclusively and solely with the U.S which is what memnoch did at the start was disagreeable.

OK. Fair point.

If there had have been full co-operation, the sanctions would have been lifted eons ago and less deaths as a result, thats firmly and squarely Saddams part of the blame and a significant part at that.

Perhaps. There is a body of thought (which I don't necessarily subscribe to, but which is not grounless) which theorises that the US were deliberately undermining the weapons inspections, and never realistically wanted them to succeed fully.

Its speculative, but no more so than the other "what if" scenarios of what would have happened had Saddam cooperated fully.

I was asking for proof of intent, in other words, did the U.S specifically target water plants as water plants.

From memory of the news of the time, I believe they did indeed...but thats my belief based on my memory, which I wouldn't trust much to begin with.

Certainly proportion some of the blame on a botched operation on the U.S but all of it?

Yes. All of it.

Unless there is someone else who carries responsibility for the botching. Saddam - or any other player other than the US army - did not have a hand in choosing the operation, nor in its planning nor execution.

Taking Saddam out of the equasion when he had so much control was what I was objecting to.

And its a fair objection...but this is an area where I think that its very important to be absolutely clear about who is being blamed for what.

Is Saddam partly/jointly to blame for the imposition of sanctions? Yes he is. Is he to blame for the choice of sanctions imposed? No, not in the slightest.

I don't believe you did that Bonkey but at the start memnoch certainly did by saying the U.S murdered 567,000 children without taking into account the mitigating circumstances.

What mitigating circumstances? Saddam did not influence the choice of sanction. He may have necessitated the existance of unspecified sanctions, but the choice to implement something that would result in such suffering is a seperate issue, unless there is some seperate argument as to why these particular sanctions were necessary.

Given that for most of the 90's Clinton was in power and not Dubya or his Dad

Sorry for cutting the rest of this paragraph, but I would be of the position that Clinton and both Bushes have acted consistently with what I would broadly define as the US' "normal" foreign policy. Neither the Bush family, nor the party distinction between them and Clinton is a significant factor here for me. Maybe it shoudl be, but I don't see it as such.

and given Clintons proven will to use U.S forces in his time in office for worthwhile exercises in Somalia and Bosnia ( albeit with mixed results )

But thas just it, isn't it. The sanctions were another case of forces used for a worthwhile exercise which had mixed results. Less positive results in the mix than usual, I'll grant you, but this action was consistent with Clinton's actions.

I'd like to think that malice was less of a forethought in his mind with respect to Iraqi children than it was with Saddam when comparing their records.

I don't know if malice had much to do with it at all. I'm not willing to argue that any US president has tried to cause such human suffering deliverately so that they could besmirch someone else with it. I think its more a case of implementing the politically expedient policy whilst simply not caring sufficiently about teh humanitarian cost....and then laying the ensuing suffering at someone else's feet as much as possible.

And it's on that basis, I lay my grounds for my disagreement with memnoch on the proportionality of the blame for the deaths.
I'd lay significantly more of it on Saddam.

OK...but again I will suggest that he did not choose the nature of the sanctions. My guess is that this is where Memnoch's objection comes in.

As I said earlier...if the US had decided to nuke Iraq as a "sanction", could we lay the blame for the ensuing destruction at Saddam's feet, or would we say that the punishment not only failed to fit the crime, but didn't even target the criminal but rather the victims.

The actual sanctions were not quite as abhorrent, but I feel that this also means that we are more willing to shift any necessary blame for the choice of sanction away from those who actually made that decision.

jc

Memnoch

i've pretty much already made all the arguements i was going to make in this case... I don't think any thing that I could say that would not really be repitition, just worded differently, and I feel the same goes for your arguements here earthman.. so no point just repeating ourselves...

though I find it intersting that you claim the US's efforts in Somalia were worthwhile.. now I'll confess i'm not well educated on the details of what happened there, but from what I've been told its not pleasant, and the US was no guardian angel.

also clinton used missiles to target "terrorist camps" in the middle-east. I remember there being some contorversy regarding this as well.

But its not a topic i've researched in great detail either, so I'll let someone who knows fill in the gaps that they want to.

What does seem likely to me is that clinton isn't the great president I thought he was.. but he was a master politician.

Certainly proportion some of the blame on a botched operation on the U.S but all of it?

Sorry Bonkey when I wrote the above line, it was to convey the thought: Certainly proportion the blame for the 567,000 deaths from a botched operation ( my bad choice of wording ) on the U.S but all of it?

I agree with you obviously that the blame for a botched operation lies with the operation/operator.
I meant as I was consistently saying, laying all the blame for the ensueing deaths solely on the U.S was disagreeable, some of it yes but not all of it.

What mitigating circumstances? Saddam did not influence the choice of sanction. He may have necessitated the existance of unspecified sanctions, but the choice to implement something that would result in such suffering is a seperate issue, unless there is some seperate argument as to why these particular sanctions were necessary.

The mitigating circumstances surrounding the proportionality of the blame for the deaths.
Saddam was in the driving seat on the ground and had the power to hasten the end of sanctions, he took the opposite course which was a willfull neglect towards those children.
I pretty much accept the value of your other points.

Memnoch

oh i fail to see how this arguement removes the status of "rogue states" from the good ol USA

Getting back to the topic, what exactly is a rogue state? Is it one that acts independent of world opinion, or what? Are there a number of requirements needed before one can be called a rogue state?

Memnoch

america has time and time again called other nations "rogue states" for acting in contravention with world opinion especially when it comes to human rights. If one takes a look at the list of policies and treaties that the US has blocked you can tell that pretty much all of them are for the good of the world as a whole..

and the US despite claiming to be in the moral right etc shows its hypocrisy clearly through its policies...

a good example is the US opposition to the ICC and the steps it has taken to undermine the ICC's authority...

what law abiding country would want to do this? none...
but off course the US has no intention of abiding by the law... if they weren't going to commit any crimes why are they affraid of the ICC's authority..

the truth being obvious and simple, they don't want to be held accountable for their actions by the international community, while they demand other countries to do the same. The sanctions in iraq being a good example of such hypocrisy.