Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on February 20, 2001, 11:58:00 AM
-
It's taken nearly a million dead Iraqi children, and the condemnation of half the civilised world, but we finally have a recognition of the pointlessness of the humanitarian sanctions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1180000/1180088.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1180000/1180088.stm)
-
However, the attacks were condemned abroad by Russia, China, Turkey, France and Iran.
LOL! This is the best list they could come up with?
...they forgot to add: "Russia, China and France rushed to sell Iraq more weapons to replace those that had been destroyed."
AKDejaVu
-
When exactly did anyone but saddam kill any of Iraq's children..oh wait not countin those that saddam may have tied to targets to dissuade attacks..
saddam pretty much reinvented the use of the human shield, what a POS.
Yup im sure the brits and americans have killed millions of children over. just look at the reports on what Iraq says was bombed...
hmmm... that giant chemical complex was a hospital for children..of course they have razorwire and armed gurads around them.. thos things that were shooting SAMs at us must have been innocent children and old women..oh well
too bad some people are dumb enough to believe that crap.
It's taken nearly a million dead Iraqi children,
What a joke. Could that phrase be any more pathetic and transparent.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
It's taken nearly a million dead Iraqi children, and the condemnation of half the civilised world, but we finally have a recognition of the pointlessness of the humanitarian sanctions.
Oh yeah, that's much worse than the countless young boys and old men Saddam poured into the his war against Iran before there ever was a Desert Storm. Not to mention his use of chemical agents against the Kurds, and against Sunni separatists in Basrah. Please, lift all sanctions so Saddam can again be the generous man he once was.
-
QUOTES FROM SADDAM
"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. O great people, O splendid men of our brave Armed Forces, O Arabs, O mujahidin, the men of the heroic Palestinian people's intifadah. "
Yes and if those men say they dont want to fight, Saddam will have them and their famly murdered.
"Whenever the deluded ones imagine that criminal America and the Zionist entity, which has usurped the Arab and Palestinian territory and which has indulged in its crimes against the Palestinians and Arabs and the sanctities of the faithful, are two different things, a new evil piece of evidence appears to confirm that America, the enemy of the peoples, and Zionism and its accursed and deformed entity, are one and the same thing in terms of aggression and evil."
Yea, but somehow invading for no reason, using poisen gas AGAINST YOUR OWN people, murdering those who dont want to fight for you, and making chemical weapons, starving your country and its childen to death so you can build another palace isnt all that evil.
"The Americans and Zionists will only reap disappointment and failure from the aggression they plan against Iraq, the Arabs, and Palestine. "
Yup, this was obviously proven by our horrible defeat in the gulf war. LOL
"Iraq of Mother of Battles will remain lofty and victorious"
ROFLOL!!
Saddam needs to stay off the crack at least a few days before he releases a statement..
Doese HE even believe this crap?
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Oh yeah, that's much worse than the countless young boys and old men Saddam poured into the his war against Iran before there ever was a Desert Storm. Not to mention his use of chemical agents against the Kurds, and against Sunni separatists in Basrah. Please, lift all sanctions so Saddam can again be the generous man he once was.
Pop quiz: What superpower was supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yes Wobbly, Saddam is a truly perverted individual. That is not in dispute. But:
"The continuation of sanction imposed on Iraq since 1991 has had a staggering effect on the health of children. International health and aid organisations, as well as UN agencies' figures estimate that around 6000 children are dying every month. A total of 570,000 have died from malnutrition and disease between 1990 and 1996. Since then this figure is estimated to have reached over 1 million. Since then, this figure is estimated to have reached 1.5 million."
- Medical Aid for Iraqi Children
From a paper presented to the International Law Association, posted by blur in another thread (referenced):
"Based on figures quoted by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in January 2000, during the two and a half years that the oil for food programme has operated, it has delivered only US $74 of food per annum per head of population. When it is recalled that, according to UN sources, Iraq was importing 70% of its food requirements even before the devastation of its agricultural sector by the Gulf War, the inadequacy of this sum is self-evident.
The same statement by Albright reveals that the programme only delivered $15 worth of medical supplies per annum per head of population, which is manifestly inadequate to deal with even the most urgent of medical needs. The report of the Secretary General dated 12 November 1999 (“the Secretary General’s report”) lists at paragraphs 45-47 a sample of the medical supplies which are in short supply, including antibiotics, syringes, anaesthetics, vaccines and drugs for chronic illnesses. It should be noted in this context that the US blocked a number of medical supply contracts in 1997 upon the grounds that the shipments might “illegally” include some free samples."
Raubvogel - don't rant without reading the full article quoted. The sanctions dealing with arms imports (including weapons of mass destruction) will not change. We are talking about the sanctions limiting medical and humanitarian aid.
How about this one:
The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions 1977
Article 48 provides: Basic Rule
"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."
I don't believe we've done that.
Or perhaps more damning:
Article 54 makes provision for the "protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population" as follows:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of 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 ...
-
Originally posted by blur:
Pop quiz: What superpower was supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Hmm...let's see...who manufactures the T-72 tank, the MIG-27, and the Hind-D helicopter? Twist it another way, that one's not working.
-
Dowding...
Please continue to defend your mother country, the great Iraq, and to serve me without question...speak my truth and condemn the Great Satan of the West. I will reward you greatly my son and the Gods of ignorance will stand guard over you and give you utterance!
Saddam
-
Dowding-do some research, you'll see numbers not much different regardless of sanctions. Using pre-Gulf War numbers, here's what I got:
Birth Rate:35 per 1,000 pop
Infant Mortality Rate: 62 per 1,000 births
Taking Iraq's current population of around 22 million, that gives you an infant death number of about 49,000 a year. Multiply that times 10 years, and *Presto* the US is the devil. Facts can be interpreted many ways, and on the surface your numbers look terrible...truth is they aren't much different than they have been all along. And those numbers are just for infants, not children.
-
Ice:
"The only good Iraqi, is a dead Iraqi." Perhaps that is YOUR mantra?
You seem to have a problem in distinguishing Saddam and his henchmen from the ordinary people of Iraq. While I have no time for Saddam - I hope there is a revolution soon, and he is the first against the wall - the innocent people of Iraq should not suffer needlessly.
We are so concerned about the minority, but do not focus on the majority. And we give Saddam a stick to beat us with everytime we refuse (or bureacratically 'delay') a shipment of medical aid to them.
BTW, I'm English not Iraqi. In case you thought Sheffield was a small suburb of Baghdad.
<edit>
Here's some research for you, Raubvogel:
A news update issued by the UN World Food Programme (WFP) noted on 26 September 1995 that 2.4 million Iraqi children under five were at severe nutritional risk.
In December 1995, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) noted that:
"As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% under weight."
In December 1995, FAO reported that 567,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct consequence of economic sanctions.
In March 1996, WHO reported that the economic sanctions had caused a six fold increase in the mortality rate of Iraqi children under five.
UNICEF reported in October 1996 that 4,500 Iraqi children under five were dying every month as a result of sanctions – induced starvation and disease.
The Panel Report of January 1999 notes: (para 18) that under 5 child mortality rate increased from 30.2/1,000 live births to 97.2/1,000 from 1989 to 1997 and that low birth weight babies rose from 4% in 1990 to approximately 25% in 1997, due mainly to maternal malnutrition; (para 19) that the prevalence of malnutrition in Iraqi children under 5 almost doubled from 1991 to 1996 and that, as at April 1997, almost the whole young child population was affected by a shift in the nutritional status towards malnutrition; (para 19) that the Iraqi infant mortality rates are among the highest in the world, in marked contrast to the situation prior to the Gulf War.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
Also, I give you this little tidbit:
the report on child
mortality rates in Iraq "indicates that the rates are declining in the autonomous northern
regions, which is under the same sanctions regime as the rest of Iraq but where oil-for-food
delivery is managed by the United Nations. In contrast, the report shows that Iraqi failure to
deliver humanitarian aid in south and central Iraq has led to a doubling of the child mortality
rate." Under Resolution 986 and its successors, 13 per cent of the total revenue from oil sales
is allocated to humanitarian goods for the north. The rest of the country receives 53 per cent
of total revenues for humanitarian imports. The UN is in charge of administering the program in
the north in cooperation with the local Kurdish authorities, although the bulk purchases of food
and medicine for the whole country are made by the Iraqi government and transported to the
north.
-
One of the most disturbing things I've ever seen was what Saddam did. I saw this video back in 1997 when I worked at RAF North Luffenham. It showed the effects of chemical/biological weapons that he had used against the Kurd's in Iraq. A whole town was killed; men, women and children (even babies) lay dead where they fell. The only thing that has turned my stomach as much as this was what the Nazi's did in the concentration camps in WW2....
Nexx
-
You seem to have a problem in distinguishing Saddam and his henchmen from the ordinary people of Iraq
Dowding, I totally see what You mean here.
But the fact is that even if we let everything flow to Iraq would the people still get it? or would saddam streal from them and build palaces as he has always done?
He's a sick basterd and one day he will be ousted, probably by his own people. Hopefully they will savagly kill him, he deserves nothing less.
The US and UN are not totally faultless in their sanctions, but given the situation its one of those things where there just isnt a totally "good" or "right" way to handel it, they are doing their best and yes people will suffer, but the reason they will is not becasue of the US or the UN but becasue saddam is the reason all this is happening, he is the cause and this is the effect. He may not be doing EVERYTHING bad that is being done, but he centanly planted the seed this has grown from.
-
LOL now I've seen everything , Some dumb SOB putting down the US for triing to turn the Iraqi people against their leader , another hitler (sadam).
some people have NO idea what the F**k they're talking about . The only countries that want sanctions lifted are the ones that have something to gain ( arms dealers )
this is one of the stupidest posts I've read to date (FINGER)
If Sadam would comply , his people would live a better life .
[This message has been edited by paintmaw (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
akdejavu man i remember that most of the scary military irac had as u.s. supplied , i see your argument but our government is basicaly evil they are right . leave the buggers alone . and let europe go fight um next time.
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Hmm...let's see...who manufactures the T-72 tank, the MIG-27, and the Hind-D helicopter? Twist it another way, that one's not working.
Hmmm, looks like you need a hint.
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html (http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html)
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Ice:
We are so concerned about the minority, but do not focus on the majority. And we give Saddam a stick to beat us with everytime we refuse (or bureacratically 'delay') a shipment of medical aid to them.
Dowding,
Without getting accusatory, your viewpoints are just as myopic as anyone elses here. The people of Iraq are suffering because of what their leader has done to them indirectly by his aggressions to neighboring countries.
History has shown that Saddam will ruthlessly attack those that he feels weaker than him if there is something to gain. The current shackles imposed on his country by the UN were put in place to restrict the damage he could do to his neighbors through acts of aggression.
The original idea behind these sanctions was that starving masses would clamor for a change in leadership just like they had in Yugoslavia recently and overthrow the current leader. Saddams ironfisted grip on his peoples however have quelled any uprisings with even more bloodshed among his own people. To summarize, the sanctions didnt have the hoped for result when they first were issued.
My only fear is that if sanctions were completely removed from Saddam and he were allowed to resume his military buildup, how many Iranians or Syrians or Kuwaitis or Saudis will be killed when he again sees an opening for attack? Are the lives of his starving masses more important than those of his neighbors?
-Ding
-
The people of Iraq are suffering because of what their leader has done to them indirectly by his aggressions to neighboring countries.
If there is no aggression being put towards him he makes something up, to steal more money which he spends on himself.
The original idea behind these sanctions was that starving masses would clamor for a change in leadership just like they had in Yugoslavia recently and overthrow the current leader. Saddams ironfisted grip on his peoples however have quelled any uprisings with even more bloodshed among his own people. To summarize, the sanctions didnt have the hoped for result when they first were issued
So we should reward him for this by lifting the sanctions??
I agree the sanctions are not the way to go, I think we should wipe him off the face of the earth, but of coure politics prohibit that for many reasons, but letting him go just becasue he has BEATEN the people into the ground with TERROR and FEAR certinly is not the way to go, hell if the president here said in public for all to hear that if you spoke against him you and your family would be murdered, i sure as hell wouldent say much, and thats the deal over there pretty much...and we should reward him for it???
My only fear is that if sanctions were completely removed from Saddam and he were allowed to resume his military buildup, how many Iranians or Syrians or Kuwaitis or Saudis will be killed when he again sees an opening for attack? Are the lives of his starving masses more important than those of his neighbors?
That pretty sums it up doesent it, there really isnt no right answer, hence the situation.
I dont believe in the sanctions, but we cant let him go either, stuck between a rock and a DICK-tater as they would say. If we lifted the sanctions on him all it would say to him and the rest of the world is that if you murder and torment your own people enough that you can hold them as hostages if you ever get into trouble. NOT a good message to send..kinda like the US's policy of not negotiating with terrorists, if we caved in on one the rest would think that they cold get away with it.
This whole is a situation is a real pickle to be in, but things would be much worse off it we and the UN just let this wacko roam free and to do as his twisted mind pleases with no fear of reprisal.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
..kinda like the US's policy of not negotiating with terrorists, if we caved in on one the rest would think that they cold get away with it.
Would you agree with this policy if you were one of the hostages? I think not.
Sanctions ARENT being removed...they are being lessened because the original goals (ousting of Saddam from power) werent attained and there is no indication that by maintaining the current level of sanctions this will ever occur.
Wobble, from your writing style I have a hard time understanding if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. :/
-Ding
-
Originally posted by blur:
Hmmm, looks like you need a hint.
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html (http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html)
Oh, I was there, I don't need any hints. I know what you're insinuating, and I'm not buying it. The Soviets were the major supporters of Iraq. Those weren't Abrams tanks we were sploding. You can twist anything to your agenda, but the truth is still there. I'm not saying we didn't contribute, but we were hardly the main supplier.
-
Heh nice link blur
Raub, agreed on that point, but the US still supported them financially and to a quite limited extent military.
The reason Saddam ain't dead yet is because the US know that it's easier to deal with a relatively secular leader of the minority than religious fanatics as seen in Iran. That's my shot at it anyhow; the US haven't shyed away from assassination attempts of leadres of sovregein nations before.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
Nope, Santa. He isn't dead because we missed him three times while we were "not hunting him" during the Gulf War. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
We got really, really close one time though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Awww, you guys can do better than that.
<recalls Castro assassination attempts>
Hm.
You're right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
We should never have gotten involved in this, unless we were determined to oust this salamander. Playing with him is only getting people killed. I say we egg him on his next birthday. No nukes required.
It would have been nice if the Republicans could pass off a real John Wayne President just once. None of these Bush boys have got it, I don't think. But, the only brains we'll see in the White House are the greasy lawyer types, or Republicans too young to have any spine. I am glad, though, that at least we have a Republican President, and not that liberal roadkill anymore. I hope they sanitize the mansion.
Regardless, of how this looks from an International stand, we have a military capable of shuting down a place like Iraq. We can work in their neighborhood and work without loss of life. We have proven this. Why then didn't we end this thing?
Saddam should be dead today. This is stupid.
Or, maybe someone with more brains, and behind the scene, knows that Saddam is better then the alternative. Could be we are all being played for saps. I'd like to see him gone, though. Dead. Quit tying up CNN with desert news. I don't care how many boogers Hussein played with today.
-
The reason Saddam ain't dead yet is because the US know that it's easier to deal with a relatively secular leader of the minority than religious fanatics as seen in Iran
THats why he isnt dead,
Between the US Navy Seals and the British SAS, I imagine he could have been plugged at the drop of a hat if it had been deemed a good idea, but it wasnt and unfortunatly, still isnt.
-
Actually, If we wanted Sadsack "removed" I think we wouldn't even have to get involved, just let Israel know that we wouldn't mind.
As for who supports who, man, that's rich coming from people who already cut deals with devils, face it, there ain't an easy answer, there is no victory without bloodshed, and "why can't we all get along?"
is as invalid now as it was when Thog first bashed Ugh over the head with the "Hefty Stick" (Tm)
The West requires oil, in fact would disintegrate without it, we have to broker deals and deals within deals, in order to obtain what we need while remaining a democracy commited to world peace, the only way for the West to ensure the flow of oil without compremising our national integrity and "dealing with devils" is to revert to good old fashioned conquest, any of you fancy having a go at ruling the world?
Didn't think so.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Ding - I've never said I wanted sanctions completely removed. Just the humanitarian ones and the 'de facto embargo by bureacracy'.
They are to put it bluntly, pushing the boundaries of legality and I'm glad the British and US governments are reviewing them.
Wobble - go back and read the quotes I've posted (the ones dealing with Madeline Albright).
They explicitly state that the 'oil for food' programme does NOT satisfy the humanitarian requirements of the Iraqi people.
So basically, the Iraqi nation is not been given enough money to obtain food, even BEFORE Saddam steals it. So the argument that we shouldn't give aid because Hussein will just divert the funds is bogus.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Wobble - go back and read the quotes I've posted (the ones dealing with Madeline Albright).
They explicitly state that the 'oil for food' programme does NOT satisfy the humanitarian requirements of the Iraqi people.
Dowding, go back and read the excerpt I posted from the State Dept. Here, I'll save you some work.
the report on child mortality rates in Iraq "indicates that the rates are declining in the autonomous northern regions, which is under the same sanctions regime as the rest of Iraq but where oil-for-food delivery is managed by the United Nations. In contrast, the report shows that Iraqi failure to deliver humanitarian aid in south and central Iraq has led to a doubling of the child mortality rate." Under Resolution 986 and its successors, 13 per cent of the total revenue from oil sales is allocated to humanitarian goods for the north. The rest of the country receives 53 per cent of total revenues for humanitarian imports. The UN is in charge of administering the program in the north in cooperation with the local Kurdish authorities, although the bulk purchases of food and medicine for the whole country are made by the Iraqi government and transported to the north.
Always another side to the story, isn't there ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Not really the other side to the story. More like carefully ignoring the key issues. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The quotes I posted explained how the total funds available for the purchase of medical supplies/food do not satisfy the need of the Iraqi people. This is even before the goods are distributed inside Iraq (your state department report).
Here's a quote that sumarises the problem better than I can:
". A commonly cited second novus actus argument in favour of the sanctions runs that fewer people would starve if Hussein spent all the available funds on food and medicine instead of squandering it on luxuries for his elite.Leaving to one side both the fact that the total revenue from the programme is admitted by the UN to be inadequate and the question of how it is supposed that Hussein could spend oil-for-food money on luxuries when it is not under his control (it is released from escrow by the UN only against approved humanitarian contracts), this is again an argument without foundation. The failure of a third party to intervene to mitigate the effects of a criminal act can never excuse the act."
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-21-2001).]
-
Dowding
Don't worry, it isn't the dead kids in Iraq that'll change our policies towards that country, it's both of our economies in need of cheaper fuel prices that will force us to deal with Saddam the moron.
Eagler
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
The reason Saddam ain't dead yet is because the US know that it's easier to deal with a relatively secular leader of the minority than religious fanatics as seen in Iran.
Interesting thought but a far shot from the truth. During the Gulf War there were a number of attempts on his life but failed for one reason or another. Once the war was ended, any attempt on his life would be contrued assasination in peacetime (murder). Although the CIA at one time were open to foreign despot assasination, they became a bit more reserved in the 70s and 80s and shunned this behavior.
As much as you all would love to see the US become a bunch of assasins, we do have a modicum of restraint (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Ding
-
.squelch Saddam
-
Gotta repeat myself again it seems. Dowding, you are a Lib-moron.
And where does it say we HAVE to GIVE Iraq food???? AFAIC, if Iraqi's are starving that's their problem. Maybe if the population wasn't made up of sniveling cowards they would revolt and kill Saddam, and all his thugs along with him.
A nation gets the government it deserves.
Cabby
-
Ok Dowding, one more time nice and bold for ya (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"In contrast, the report shows that Iraqi
failure to deliver humanitarian aid in south and central Iraq has led to a doubling of the child mortality rate."
How is it that with only 13% of the total funds, the infant mortality rate in the UN controlled north is falling, yet in the Iraqi controlled south with 53% of the funds it is rising? Doesn't something seem odd about that? And this report is pretty specific. I mean "Iraqi failure to deliver aid has led to a doubling of the mortality rate" is pretty clearly defined. Two different sources, two different stories. Which one is correct? Neither of us knows for sure, I can guarantee that.
-
Cabby - your posts are absolutely hilarious. I actually look forward to them. You are clearly the most angry, bitter and above all joyless person I've encountered on this BB. Every post you make is dripping with a vitriol which is either a wind-up or the tragic product of deep-seated insecurity crossed with a crippling desire to one day have your own opinion.
If you want to contribute like an adult, instead of the oafish characture of a goose-stepping right-wing nutter that you seem to be fond of, then I'll gladly answer any of your points. Until that distant day, I'll continue to enjoy your performance for what it is.
And just for you: Privet, Comrade!
Raubvogel - the point about conflicting sources is a good one. But not relevant here, pal. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I concede that Saddam is abusing the distribution of aid from the 'oil for food' scheme - but the over-riding is issue is that there is not enough aid in the first place, even before Saddam diverts/steals it.
Of course Saddam is acting like a complete bastard, but I believe we are making the situation far worse.
But anyway, good discussion. I didn't expect anyone to really agree with me. Cheers and <S>. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-21-2001).]