 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I found this amusing:
There might be a case for arguing that sanctions have indirectly killed a lot of Iraquis ("indirectly" because Iraq can buy all the food that it needs). But bombing? After all the recent televised use of precision-guided munitions in recent conflicts, why do so many people apparently still assume that "bombing" means carpet-bombing cities, Dresden-style?
But this guy tosses it in with "sanctions" as a cause of mass death. What about the thousands of people who die in the US every year due to Spider-Man comics and handguns? Or the millions who are dying in Africa due to the Disney Channel and AIDS? |
Here you go Jack
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...raq1/000719.htm
quote:
An Interview With Dennis Halliday, Ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General Heading The UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq
Resolution 1302 is a continuation of the Oil-for-Food programme, which was not designed to resolve the crisis in Iraq. When it was assembled in 1996, it was designed to stop further deterioration. But the fact is that Oil-for-Food has sustained the humanitarian crisis. Mortality rates of children under five years of age still remain at 5,000 per month, plus an additional 2,000-3,000 people per month among adults, other children and teenagers. These people are dying because of bad water, inadequate diets, broken down hospital care and collapsed systems.
We have massive malnutrition in Iraq, despite the Oil-for-Food programme. There is a huge social collapse, families falling apart with children out of school taking to the streets. The electric power is 35 per cent of what it was in 1990. So the Oil-for-Food programme has totally failed to bring about the well being of the Iraqi people. Having said that, it has, however, provided something like 20 million tonnes of basic food. It does make a huge difference in keeping the Iraqi people alive -- but only barely alive
|
Not so funny... maybe not a million over 10 years but close.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
One Foot: The Washington Post had a good series about a year ago, but I can't find it now.
The majority of the hijackers were from "Yemeni" Saudi Arabia. The flash point was as Dinodoc describes. |
Ok... what can I tell you, I would love to read it. I'll try and dig something up.
just someting I found on Frontline
quote:
What's the different conclusion?
That depends on understanding the problem. The problem is a phenomenon consisting of at least four ingredients. The first ingredient is the huge hatred of the United States because of its polices in Palestine, its policies in Iraq, its policies in the Arabian Peninsula.
The second element of this phenomenon is the hopeless leaders in our region, which are regarded by people as oppressors, as traitors, as [stooges] for the United States
|
Interview with and Saudi exile... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...iews/fagih.html
So the statement above (The principal causes of terrorism are US economic and military domination, or perceived domination, in the Middle East ) from is not so inaccurate according to that Saudi exile.
quote:
... There's an important point here that this hate is not the natural hate people have to a prosperous superpower. It's not that sort of hate. It's very specific hate for the sake of policies in the Middle East, which people perceive or understand that those policies are very much directed against them in terms of their identity, being Arabs and Muslims.
They ask themselves why, for God's sake, America sacrificed its interests for the case of defending Israel. The interests of America are in oil in the Gulf and other areas. Why would America lose money and lose face and get continuous embarrassment for the sake of defending the aggressive, very, very bad policies of Israel, and keep declaring that nobody should touch the security of Israel, and stand in a way in which America with all its huge machine becomes a tool for Israel to manipulate?
If it has interests in the region and it hates Saddam Hussein, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...
|
edit: I guess that this gives the answer to the posts in between too... it is not only Saddams fault, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...
I would add, is a frontal attack the only way to get rid of Saddam After 10 years of the embargo?
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 19-11-2002 at 22:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily. |
Not entirely true. The UN 661 council, which has been responsible for the sanctions and humanitarian exceptions, has been an abject failure. It was undermanned, and couldn't approve contracts fast enough, or just bureaucratically inept.
In many cases, things like components and chemicals for water treatment, have been blocked by the veto power of the US and UK as 'dual-use' even when scientists declared this was clearly not the case.. Another instance was the case of $280 million worth of vaccines for diseases like hepatitis which were blocked because of the potential for culturing bioterror weapons-again biochemists stated this was flatly impossible. It wasn't until the Wash. Post and Reuters was ready to expose the matter that the US approved these contracts. The burden of blame for the decline in the health and welfare of the Iraqi people doesn't fall on Saddam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
FACT: Saddam could have provided for his people, but chose to buy weapons instead. He's been smuggling enough oil since the Gulf War to provide for his people, even outside the oil for food program. |
He's only earning around $20-25 million a month through oil sales - a pittance compared to the massive financial/humanitarian burden created by the sanctions, and the bombing of power plants, water treatment facilities, etc.
It's a joke and a gross oversimplification to think that Saddam is "starving" his people. The sanctions, and their cynical use as a coercive tactic, have affected all aspects of the Iraqis' lives. Everything from educational materials to dental supplies has been held back either from bureaucratic ineptness, or to cater to the whims of the UN's strongest members.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
 this is about student strike in Techeran,
This article is nice
http://www.usatoday.com/community/c...-05-16-kirk.htm
quote:
Pittsburgh, PA: Why isn't this guy dead? Can't Delta Force get to him, or are the political repercussions of an assassination too much for the U.S. to chance?
Mike Kirk: Because real life is not a movie. Delta Force cannot drop in and assassinate any bad guys all by themselves. There was great planning involved in using a Delta team to kill bin Laden during the Clinton years, but when you total up the necessary extraction teams and other logistical elements, it became much more complicated than it seemed at first blush. If you doubt that, take a look back at what happened when we tried to rescue our hostages in Tehran, Iran. The mission was a failure and an embarrassment, and worst yet, there was a loss of many American lives. You can also look at the mission to extract Aideed from Mogadishu in 1993. Additionally, there are at least 11 Saddam Husseins walking around in Baghdad. Which one would you kill |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
How, exactly? There were two options: 1) conquer Iraq and remove Saddam and 2) leave him in power and attempt to "contain" him with sanctions and such.
Option #1, if I understand things correctly, was deemed to be a coalition-breaker. The coalition had been formed to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove him from power.
Option #2 was chose, and not just by the US. Then, surprise surprise, it didn't work (have sanctions EVER worked?) and everyone blames us. The primary fault still lies with Saddam, even if our policy was a mistake.
-Arrian |
Well true, as 1) the Arab states were afraid of a democracy in Iraq, and they did not want to support it. and 2) well a failure, but US was not the only one that chose it.
Anyway, US is still singled out as the enemy because of Israel, still UK is becoming a very likely enemy #2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
While searching for a link re: 9/11 motivations, I came across the 1998 Fatwah vs. Americans by the World Islamic Front. Accordingly to the website, OBL helped author it.
The first and primary transgression listed is "occupation" of Saudi Arabia by US troops. The second is our actions vis-a-vis Iraq, and the third is our support for Israel.
Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
The accusations:
quote:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. |
Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Why OBL ultimately hates us:
Our support of the corrupt Saudi royals prevented him from overthrowing that unpopular regime and thus gaining resources to fund a world-wide Islamic revolution(terror campagne).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
"He's only earning around $20-25 million a month through oil sales "
You've got severe math problems and it's clear that you haven't checked Saddam's propaganda against reality.
You're off by a factor of 50x. More like $20-25 million a day through the "old" oil-for-food regime. This represented 60-70% of Iraq's OPEC quota. Then all he could smuggle above and beyond that was gravy.
Through the "new" oil-for-food program, he can sell as much as he wants, just as long as it's for food and medicine. And he's outputting about 2 million barrels of oil a day--100% of his OPEC quota.
Hell, the US was buying $20-25 million a day worth of oil from Iraq up until a couple of months ago.
"It's a joke and a gross oversimplification to think that Saddam is "starving" his people."
Let me guess. You also believe that Gulf War I wasn't Saddam's fault. Or the Iran-Iraq War.
This guy is bad news.
Last edited by DanS on 20-11-2002 at 06:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2002 21:31
|