Iraq and...Annan

[Angus]

Look here. Not so known today, but stunning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo%E2%80%93Abyssinian_War

[FiLtH]

But in europe and asia, both were disciplined enough to lay down their arms and build in the new peace. These people are cut of a different cloth. Without lying,cheating, and killing, life is no fun for them.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Angus
Dead:
"the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children ".
Were under the Regime of Saddam.
1. They amount for more than the casualties of all sides after the war.
2. Saddam was still on a shopping spree.

And 3. I don't belive anyone wanted that arse to have a nuke.

Well the deaths were directly attributed to the US & UK sanctions -- which IIRC Saddam was opposed to -- and the US Secretary of State didn't take issue with that fact or the numbers. So I'd take that as the US & UK deliberately targeting civilians.

And 1. Depending on which stats you use. The Lancet begs to differ, putting the figure up near 655,000, using fairly standard methodology.

2. And your point is? IIRC ruthless dictators aren't known for their charity work, in fact they can't be ruthless dictators and care about their population much. It's a tradition, or an old charter or something.

Basically you're argument there appears to be:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.

As for this:
"I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent."

And at what scale and executed mostly by whom?
Oh, the dead are actually mostly victims of Saddams old merry crew and islamic extremists in various groups. Ethnic cleansings? yes, between the groops again, just in penny-packets instead of big-sale.

 And yet - and this is Annan's point - the penny-packet killings added all together are worse and more widespread than under Saddam's big-sale operations.

And the WMD's. Well, it would have been more comfortable for the U.S. to find some, but (thanks god) there weren't any, - YET.

My point being that things that aren't there aren't much of a "trigger". I believe the more common term for them is "excuse" or "lie".

As for the Oil theory, this:
"It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah "
It's actually surprizing how little of the US oil comes from the middle east.

Yes but US Middle Eastern policy is all about energy security at any cost, not just the actual oil. Saddam did represent a threat to energy security with the combined weight of his & Kuwait's oil: for eg he can sell it for $1 a barrel and hurt the Bush Administration's mates in Texas by dropping the price of oil. He also has much more control in OPEC, which controls 41.7% of the world's oil production, fixing the price and production rates.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by ByeBye
Of course, the UN and the rest of the world never did anything to help anyone in Iraq.

Which is why the US and the UK shouldn't have a veto in the UN Security Council. Neither should the others: China, Russia & France.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by -dead-
Well the deaths were directly attributed to the US & UK sanctions -- which IIRC Saddam was opposed to -- and the US Secretary of State didn't take issue with that fact or the numbers. So I'd take that as the US & UK deliberately targeting civilians.

It's statements like this that make me think that people just make up their own news now a days.  

[lukster]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's statements like this that make me think that people just make up their own news now a days.  

He conveniently forgets the "oil for food" program which because it was sorely abused by Saddam, and even officials in the UN, was responsible for many deaths.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by lukster
He conveniently forgets the "oil for food" program which because it was sorely abused by Saddam, and even officials in the UN, was responsible for many deaths.

And which country was responsible for introducing that program and prolonging the sanctions?

[lukster]

Originally posted by -dead-
And which country was responsible for introducing that program and prolonging the sanctions?

Clinton was responsible for the program but it was the abuse of it that led to deaths. I'll agree that Clinton should have rid the world of Saddam.

[Angus]

Yes, - good question.
Anyway dead:
"And yet - and this is Annan's point - the penny-packet killings added all together are worse and more widespread than under Saddam's big-sale operations."

There is a difference. The numbers today are known, the others are not. As more mass graves are discovered, they rise. And to the equation comes this as well, - were the killings at zero when the war started. What would have been the number?
Since there is a claim of 665.000 dead from the beginning of the war, how does it break down? How many are troops and how many killed by the US?

And then to the means of getting a WMD.
"My point being that things that aren't there aren't much of a "trigger". I believe the more common term for them is "excuse" or "lie"."

I belive it's well established that Saddam was trying as hard as he could. He used the resources that othervise could have fed his folks for his military effort. He bought lots of tools, just couldn't get it together and didn't have the time to finish the job. So, it was him first and foremost that starved his own lot. ( It was also him that shopped enough ultrasoniq equipment for all the major hospitals in Europe (used for kidneystones etc but can be used in the nuke process as well), - very expensive, in the middle of starvation.)

So, as an outsider (not US), I see the bad guy, and the USA getting the spam

[Mace2004]

Ah yes, the oil for food program.  Aided and abetted by UN officials and lots of politicians from other countries, primarily France and Germany.  But let's not forget the international Press which also aided and abetted by being a conduit for Iraqi propaganda.  

I recall a big expose on the problems caused by the first war and the follow-on sanctions.  A big deal was made about a power plant just north of Basra which was, according to the "expose" and Iraqi testimony "bombed back to the stone age".  The "expose" included testimony by "experts" that the plant and was completely unreparible.  

The Iraqi Propaganda Machine....errr...Internation al Press then proceeded to attribute several thousand child deaths to lack of power from this power plant at hospitals and to keep food chilled.   Again, backed up only by Iraqi "witnesses" which of course all worked for the government of Iraq.  Who caused all this misery and death?  The mean-old Amerikan war-machine.

Oh...I forgot to mention.  The day before I saw this broadcast I was flying over southern Iraq at night.  Actually, I flew directly over the "stone aged" power plant.  Hummmm....as I recall the plant was fully operational and lights covered the entire Basra area.  Seemed pretty "non-stone age" to me.  Wonder how the press came up with these claims?  Wonder how many children actually "died" from lack of electrical power?  How many people actually died in Iraq in total due to the sanctions?  Were these normal deaths of natural causes?  Do the numbers include the Shia Saddam massacred during the post-Desert Storm uprising?  

The Japenese are still increasing the supposed death tolls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As soon as a survivor dies of any cancer, even though most are in their 70's to 90's, they get added to the list, this even though the cancer rate in Hiroshima is lower than most of the other industrialized cities in Japan.  The same nonsense went on in Iraq for years.  

My question is why are so many people willing to attribute evil intentions to the US while at the same time pretending that Saddam wasn't so bad?

[-dead-]

Originally posted by lukster
Clinton was responsible for the program but it was the abuse of it that led to deaths. I'll agree that Clinton should have rid the world of Saddam.

So the US was responsible for the Oil For Food program with its easily abused regulations as well as the sanctions?
So to summarise so far:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.
4. In order to avoid more unecessary suffering, the US govt introduces a scheme to let Iraq pay for food with oil, so that they can keep the sanctions in place without killing too many more civilians
5. The scheme relies on a corrupt dictatorship being scrupulously honest, because the dictator -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population -- (as per the sanctions idea) can't possibly be a genocidal manic and obviously cares about killing his population.
6. It turns out the corrupt dictatorship is -- shock! horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.

And if that weren't embarrassing enough, when we look at responsibilities:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal concluded that

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

Also according to Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.

[lukster]

Originally posted by -dead-
horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.

Like I said, Clinton should have taken out Saddam. Better late than never though. Of course it seems that all the US detractors would prefer Saddam in power.

[evenhaim]

Cofee anan is a bad bad man you just dont see it

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by -dead-
So the US was responsible for the Oil For Food program with its easily abused regulations as well as the sanctions?
So to summarise so far:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.
4. In order to avoid more unecessary suffering, the US govt introduces a scheme to let Iraq pay for food with oil, so that they can keep the sanctions in place without killing too many more civilians
5. The scheme relies on a corrupt dictatorship being scrupulously honest, because the dictator -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population -- (as per the sanctions idea) can't possibly be a genocidal manic and obviously cares about killing his population.
6. It turns out the corrupt dictatorship is -- shock! horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.

And if that weren't embarrassing enough, when we look at responsibilities:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal concluded that


Also according to Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.

Don't be a fool dead.  Oil for food was proposed by the US but was a UN run program.  Also, as I pointed out the supposition that 567,000 Iraqi kids died due to the program is crap and was derived in a similar manner to the current supposed Iraqi deaths since Iraqi Freedom.  They basically went around and took a poll asking if someone knew someone who had died.  This doesn't take into account multiple people who knew of the same death or an accurate and empirecal analysis of the cause of death.  In 2003 about 3000 people died in France due to a heat wave.  Assuming each of these people were well known by say, 20 other people and you took a poll that means the reported deaths would be 600,000.  Recall also that Saddam's government had control over most of the information reported so they had a very large stake in grossly over reporting the numbers.  In addition, how often do you see the international press take information reported at face value just as long as it promotes an anti-American position?  If it's anti-American, it'll be on the front page and they won't question it at all....actually this is kinda like most of your posts.  

The whole point to the sanctions was to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military because he had 1) invaded a foreign country, 2) lost, and 3) owed war reparations AS DETERMINED BY THE UN.  The point to the UN oil for food program was to provide for the Iraqi people.  The fact that Saddam used the UN program to divert money back to his military while starving the Iraqi population just goes to show you that good intentions quite often have negative results.  While there may have been some US citizens or corporations involved, running of the program, oversight of the program and establishing a corrupt conduit to allow key personel to profit was clearly a UN responsibility.  None of the US citizens were in a position to influence the path the UN took regarding Iraq while other specifically named people involved included a member of the British Parliment, officials of the French Foreign Ministry, the French Interior Minister, and at least one Russian politician.  This is not including the profitering occuring within the UN itself.

[T0J0]

Ohh yeah Annan the inker of the Oil for popsickles program, taking out Saddam put a dent in Annans personnal retirement plan so he's obviously going to get even by Bush bashing...