The conclusive proof that UN sanctions against Iraq are great!

bugler · 17-04-2001 10:41pm #1

Sarcastic title by the way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,473804,00.html
Basically the other Arab countries were putting forward a motion that the sanctions against Iraq should be lifted,at their summit.One country opposed the lifting of sanctions.That country was Iraq.Yes its true.
Read above link.I suppose Bush/Blair will still claim that sanctions are the way to oust Saddam? And their for the good of all?
*sigh*

androphobic · 17-04-2001 10:50pm

<snip>
Sanctions, they suggest, have facilitated Saddam's control over the population, partly because of food rationing and partly because the Iraqi government is able to use sanctions as an excuse for its own shortcomings.

</snip>

Christ..

bugler · 17-04-2001 11:05pm

I've been bleeting about this for ages.

UN: "Now Mr Hussein,your people are starving,and have no medicine,many young kids have died because of this,and the fact you have no chloriene to clean your water!!
Nevermind the fact that your in your palace with your huge amounts of wealth,we are teaching you a lesson. Have you had enough,or do you want more?!

Saddam:"More please.On account of it allowing me to make a demon out of the west,and blame them for our misfortune.not me.I'm more secure than ever....

Note*: The above conversation may never have happened.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 18-04-2001 12:52am

I am totally against sanctions on Iraq- beyond an oil embargo at any rate. Not allowing foodstuffs or medicine into the country isn't just inhumane but in-*sane*. How starving the people of Iraq of basic necessities is either going to promote political change in Iraq *or* stabilize the reason I fail to see...

The evil political establishment that is our State Department seems to be convinced that this is the way forwards, conveniently tugging along a leash wrapped around Blair's balls (excuse the graphic alliterative metaphor) as they go.

When I worked in MSF, some of my colleagues told me about the state of affairs in Iraq- it is fuc|<ing apalling. Vaccines were practically exhausted five years ago- Iraqi children haven't had basic protection against TB, smallpox or measles for *five* years. Deprivation of such vaccine programmes for a single year is cause for immense public health concern.

And as bugler rightly points out, our friend Saddam is sitting pretty, and able to turn every hostile action of the West to his advantage.

To conclude- the current sanctions are an unforgiveable policy when applied to a nation shattered by war. It's not as if Germany or Japan suffered crippling embargos after WWII, and there was *far* more cause there. The reason why there were no sanctions is perfectly obvious- it's like kicking a crippled man to the ground, continuing to kick him and shouting at him to get up? Wouldn't it be easier for him to get up if you stopped kicking his head in and offered him your hand? Very possibly.

Saddam would lose most of his propaganda power if we were actually nice to his people and informed them better than he does.

Well, that's my loose change

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 18-04-2001).]

DadaKopf · 18-04-2001 1:19am

It all goes back to this stuff on the Boards a few weeks ago. I've pretty much been tracking this summit and a few things seem likely in my mind, things which i've said on here before.

1] GW Bush said he wants a democratic institution in Iraq sooner rather than later

2] Kuwait expressed anxiety of perpetual threat of Iraqi invasion, justified or not; OPEC will most likely cajole the West into taking heed of this anxiety

3] The article, when reading between the lines, presents Saddam Hussein as a leader preoccupied with colsolidating power on himself and maintaining his dictatorial hold over the country. I get the impression that America, for example, presents him as a Milosevic character - a callous, machiavellian politician and ideologue who will stop at nothing to expand his influence beyond his state's borders. I found this article to depict Saddam as a leader, concerned with living the good life quite comfortably on the backs of his people, despite crippling sanctions. Patently, he exploits the Iraqi national TV network and propaganda newspapers to keep up a particular level of public support - due in short to his public stance against the "American imperialist aggressor" and his decorated history as a Persian war hero. Personally, I think he is only a defiant leader in that he just wishes to have power and wealth - in a way, he is an old fashioned Arabic satrap. Not that his despicable attitude to the people of Iraq is at all justified (to a westerner's eyes).

4] He, Tariq Ali and his honchos are being dumb; they could have garnered the support of his Arabic counterparts who seemed more than willing to unite against the escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict (don't forget Syria now) but he didn't - I still think most people here hope that this Broz Tito of the 90s goes senile and dies in a house made from marshmallow.

5] This new development seems to go half way in deflating tension in the middle-east (excluding Israel, Palestine, Syria), Iraq looks unlikely to lay claim to Kuwait again and Saddam is pandering to UN sanctions, if only to live a commodious life himself.

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Blitzkrieger · 18-04-2001 10:33am

Do you honestly think that if the embargoes were lifted the people of Iraq would be better off? Who can think giving a man like So-Damn Insane more resourses is a good idea? I bet you'd be surpriesed when the biological weapons started raining down on you

Greenbean · 18-04-2001 10:49am

Sanctions; look at after ww1 and what happened.

Hobbes · 18-04-2001 10:57am

Not to mention Blitz... that Iraq owes millions in cash to Ireland for all the food we sent over pre-war. When the war broke out they basically told Ireland they can go Fuk themselves if they were expecting payment.

bugler · 18-04-2001 8:50pm

if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998 -Unicef, 12 August 1999.

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

-Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998.

Most recently, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in its report of September 2000 characterises the Government of Iraq's food rationing system as "effective". It notes that the availability of "cereal imports since 1997/98 under the oil-for-food deal has led to significant improvements in the food supply situation"

So much for the Iraqi government being to blame.Read the aforementioned report here:http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/iraqnutrition.pdf
You'll need adobe acrobat,hope that url works.

Tun Myat, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, made similar comments in his first press conference on 19 October 2000. He said that the food distribution system in Iraq under the "oil for food" programme was "second to none"

Yet still we have people claiming that it would make no difference if the sanctions were lifted,as the Iraqi government will not distribute it effectively/at all.

The UN security council set up a "Humanitarian Panel"(how kind) to evaluate the effect these sanctions had. Summary:

"In marked contrast to the prevailing situation prior to the events of 1990-91, the infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among the highest in the world, low infant birth weight affects at least 23% of all births, chronic malnutrition affects every fourth child under five years of age, only 41% of the population have regular access to clean water, 83% of all schools need substantial repairs. The ICRC states that the Iraqi health-care system is today in a decrepit state. UNDP calculates that it would take 7 billion US dollars to rehabilitate the power sector country-wide to its 1990 capacity." (§43).

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/panelrep.html
some of you might want to go there,to see the widespread effects of the sanctions.

Heres some brief extracts from the reports findings on the effects of the sanctions on the following:

Infant And Maternal Health: "Low birth weight babies (less than 2.5 kg) rose from 4% in 1990 to around a quarter of registered births in 1997, due mainly to maternal malnutrition. UNFPA and other sources such as the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies believe that as many as 70% of Iraqi women are suffering from anemia." (§18)

Society: On "the cumulative effects of sustained deprivation on the psycho-social cohesion of the Iraqi population […] the following aspects were frequently mentioned: increase in juvenile delinquency, begging and prostitution, anxiety about the future and lack of motivation, a rising sense of isolation bred by absence of contact with the outside world, the development of a parallel economy replete with profiteering and criminality, cultural and scientific impoverishment, disruption of family life.

Economy: "The data provided to the panel point to a continuing degradation of the Iraqi economy with an acute deterioration in the living conditions of the Iraqi population and severe strains on its social fabric. As summarized by the UNDP field office, "the country has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty."

Sorry for so long a post

bugler · 18-04-2001 8:52pm

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
Do you honestly think that if the embargoes were lifted the people of Iraq would be better off

Yes.Maybe if you look up a bit more on it you might see that too.

androphobic · 18-04-2001 10:28pm

If you read all the evidence bugler has presented us with, it would be very hard not to think that the people of Iraq would be better off withOUT the embargoes.

That quote... -

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

-Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998.

- says it all.

[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 18-04-2001).]

androphobic · 18-04-2001 10:30pm

woops.. screwed up.. damn im not used to this yet

[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 18-04-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 19-04-2001 12:26pm

Bugler has very astutely drawn our attention to an excruciatingly important tidbit of recent history. The UN commissioner in charge of Iraq's sanction compliance actually resigned when he saw the apalling state of affairs the country was in. Let's think about that for a moment. He was willing to throw in his livelihood with a steady job for the largest bureaucratic organization on the planet- because he had to enforce a UN resolution. It strikes me that if he was willing to do such a thing- then such a resolution must surely be prejudiced *against* the human rights of a nation's people and is therefore no resolution at all. The legal challenges have been coming in thick and fast since then Far from apologizing for that post being too long bugler, you are to be commended for having thrown some hard facts and evidence to show the dissenters how bad the situation actually is.

As I said before, two close colleagues of mine worked with Medicins Sans Frontieres in Iraq (I did my stint in MOrocco)- and they draw some pretty nasty and graphic images in my head. Mob rule distributing what little food came in- people mortgaging their house in order to obtain black market medicines and vaccinations. Government officials on the other hand are easily recognizable. They look plump, well fed, and drive around Baghdad in a black-windowed chauffeur-driven limo with police (and sometimes army) escort.

The lifting of sanctions would cut the legs out from the black market economy, and would give the Iraqi government a moment of pause. Proper dissemination of information and humanitarian cooperation have established democracy far more effectively than sanctions and assassinations have (at least according to history).

In any case, I think bugler and other like-minded folk are spot-on...you're not going to elicit cooperation from a nation by grinding them into the dust- that would only deepen their resolve in many ways- cooperation however? They're a helluva lot more likely to trust you then. After a while, perhaps they might give you concessions to let weapons inspectors in again. Then again, they might kick them out, and we'd be back to square 1. But it's at least worth a try ffs.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=

Excelsior · 19-04-2001 1:09pm

For me, this is an issue that has probably shocked me more than any other in my life. As a kid I grew up seeing stealth bombers on the tv. America was the nation of democracy and freedom.
But how wrong I was.
The fundamental difficulty with the Iraq situation, and one that on its own should finish the argument is the death of children.

It angers me to the core that there are people (particuarly Americans) out there who think that we are somehow making the world better with these sanctions.

Even approach it from a moderate standpoint, destorying Saddam, or punishing him is all well and good, but retribution should not come before justice. And the deaths of 100,000s of children is injustice.

Now consider that the sanctions neither puinish Saddam, nor deliver retibution, and I can understand the anger that people feel.

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Canaboid · 19-04-2001 2:29pm

Just a small question but how are childrens lives more important than adults ?

Excelsior · 19-04-2001 2:39pm

If that is directed to me, I wonder why? Did I make such a statement?

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

bugler · 19-04-2001 3:56pm

Childrens lives more important than adults? Well it depends in what context you look at it.If you are attempting to question why the figures referred to above are heavy with stats on childrens deaths/infant mortality rates then the answer is this: There are few factors so indicative of a nations predicament/situation as the life expectancy of its children.During the first few years of a childs life,it is most vulnerable to disease and death if not properly looked after.The denial of basic vaccinations/innoculations to Iraqi children is key.They are/will be ravaged by diseases which many of us will have thought extinct or a relic of bygone times. The children are the future of any country,surely no one needs telling that.

One could also look at it this way: Who are the sanctions supposed to punishing? Saddam? Of course they are not. The average man/woman who made up citizens of the Republic which he ruled? Some form of tenuos argument may be made there(even though Saddams inflammatory actions would have found little widespread support),but whatever the view,I don't think the sanctions should punish little children and new born infants.Yet these are the people being hit hard,and dying most frequently.

On a more wide note perhaps Canaboid,it may take you to suffer the bereavement of a young sibling or the death of your child for you to realise why the life of a child might be considered more valuable than that of an adult.

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 19-04-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 19-04-2001 3:57pm

From a moral standpoint, there is no doubt that the sanctions are cruel and unwarranted. Politically speaking though- from a Machiavellian point of view- the Gulf War and its aftermath unfortunately paid the US huge dividends

1) General rant

As for the notion that most Americans support the sanctions- statistics appear to indicate this- but I've met very few of my countrymen who remotely agree with the policies of the then Bush administration or the aftermath of the war. There is a growing movement on Capitol hill which proposes debt defaults and the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and Iran(yes, in spite of now excellent foreign relations we're still sanctioning them). The same lobby believes that we should take a less active role in enforcing UNSC resolutions and in the UNSC as a whole. So there is light at the end of the tunnel- ironically, GW Bush is in favor of relaxing his stance towards Iraq- the exact opposite of his dad. Whether the hard right would pass any such proposed Bill is open to debate.

2)Duplicitous foreign policy

What bothers me more than anything else is the black-hearted duplicity of the State Department. We punish Iraq and Serbia for the manner in which they handle their internal affairs...the Iraqis bomb the Kurds...and we bomb the Iraqis. The same went for Serbia. But when Russia oppresses Chechnya? "It's an internal Russian affair". I mean c'mon...

How in the hell was the Gulf war our problem anyway? The British divided up Iraq (using a large corps of Irish conscripts to help enforce it). The French and the British managed to singlehandedly create the Israeli situation...and suddenly that becomes our problem too? Please.

Imho, the Bush administration over-reacted to a situation they feared could lead to a return to the supply-side shocks of the 70's...and unfounded fear due to domestic supply, reserves and good relations with Jordan and Saudi.

And Canniboid-children's lives are important for moral reasons but also because they are an investment in our future. Each child is a potential leader, scientist, writer, etc. If cared for and nurtured, then the future is bright for the rest of us too. Don't forget that these kids we see here today will be in power when you and I are collecting our pensions- and kids have a loooong memory of bullies...so be nice

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et Tu Brute?=

bugler · 19-04-2001 4:02pm

What bothers me more than anything else is the black-hearted duplicity of the State Department

Indeed.The example that most springs to my mind however concerns Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon.The UN deemed it illegal,under the exact same mandate with which they declared the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as illegal,yet the attitudes/reactions of the western powers were very much different in the two cases.

Blitzkrieger · 19-04-2001 11:04pm

I think the different reactions was all down to oil.

I honestly don't think lifting the sanctions would help the people of Iraq. The level of sanctions are designed (I think i read this somewhere) to allow Iraq make enough money to feed everybody, as well as provide healthcare, education, etc., but Sodamn Insane takes the money to spend on himself, his generals, and his military. Then uses the sanctions as propaganda against the west. I believe if the sanctions were eased, even more money would go to himself, the generals, the army and a drop would go to the people.

The Iraqi people will never prosper under the current regime and don't think it's all down to outside influence.

bugler · 20-04-2001 12:28am

Thats an astoundingly ignorant viewpoint.

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:

I honestly don't think lifting the sanctions would help the people of Iraq.

In 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that:
"the effect of sanctions and blockades has been to cause suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children".

In 1998, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized that:
"the embargo imposed by the Security Council has adversely affected the economy and many aspects of daily life, thereby impeding the full enjoyment by the States party’s population, particularly children,of their rights to survival, health and education".

The Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council wrote in March 1999:
"Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of prolonged measures imposed by the Security Counciland the effects of the war".

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in September 2000 that it:
"believes that the current sanctions regime is having a disproportionately negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights by the Iraqi population. OHCHR considers that the time has come for the extent and nature of the sanctions regime on Iraq to be reexamined".
Apparently Blitz knows better than all those commissions.Commisions of the very organisation who is imposing the sanctions.

The level of sanctions are designed
(I think i read this somewhere) to allow Iraq make enough money to feed everybody, as well as provide healthcare, education, etc., but Sodamn Insane takes the money to spend on himself, his generals, and his military.

Well are you sure you read that somewhere? Or did you just make that up to suit your argument here? Once again I'm afraid,the UN disagrees:
The UN Secretary-General has repeatedly made the same point: for example, in his report of 2 March 2001, he writes that "the programme(oil for food) was never meant to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people and cannot be a substitute for normal economic activity in Iraq."

-The Security Council's humanitarian panel reported in March 1999, for Iraq to recover, "the 'oil for food' system alone would not suffice and massive investment would be required in a number of key sectors, including oil, energy, agriculture and sanitation" (§42); furthermore, oil for food "can admittedly only meet but a small fraction of the priority needs of the Iraqi people".-

When Tun Myat, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, returned to New York last October, after six months in Iraq, he emphasized the problem of poverty in a press briefing:

"The food distribution system ... now ensures that under the new Distribution Plan over 2,470 kcal of energy of food is being made available to every man, woman and child in the country ... but the fact is, of course, people have become so poor, in some cases, that they can’t even afford to eat the food that they've been given free because for many of them, the food ration represents the major part of their income ... they have to sell it in order to buy clothes and shoes or hats or whatever other things that they would require. So the sort of upturn in nutrition that we would all want to be seeing is not happening".
Yet we supposed to believe they are being catered for adequately.

I'm going to cut myself off here,as if debating has taught me one thing,its that some people will not be swayed from their beliefs.The very fact that you use a "comedic" name for Hussein speaks volumes about how you have swallowed his demonisation.Is he a nice man? No. A good man? Not by any means. Iraq will never or would never have gotten to the peak of prosperity under Saddam,but the depiction of Saddam many hold is almost hilariously founded on propaganda.

Seen as me arguing probably won't convince Blitz,I might leave a few statements of other people who have more direct knowledge of matters.They obviously don't think that removing sanctions would lead to no change.And what would they know after all? They do not possess the inside track like Blitz.
In march 2000,Hans von Sponeck of Germany,who was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq quit his post,saying the oil for food program has actually prolonged Iraqis' suffering, rather than alleviating it: "I cannot any longer be associated with a program that prolongs sufferings of the people and which has no chance to meet even basic needs of the civilian population.I leave with a deep conviction that the overwhelming evidence that the international community now has is that things have not gone well in Iraq and that the target has been missed".

Scott Ritter, formerly in charge of Unscom concealment programme is now actively campaigning for the lifting of the non-military sanctions, whose effects he claims are "felt by 22 million innocent Iraqi people, not by the leadership, not by Saddam Hussein, not by his cronies".

Perhaps amnesty international have something of interest:

Iraq continued to be subjected to stringent economic sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The sanctions have crippled the country's economic infrastructure and have contributed to a deteriorating economic situation, increased unemployment, rising malnutrition and mortality levels and widespread corruption. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

Causing corruption?? Well yes.The only way to stamp out widespread corruption is to allow the importation of food unhindered.Stop dealing with those high ranking officials who deal in oil.Allow the mass importation of foodstuffs,take the power out of the hands of crooked governement officials.Basic economic lesson concerning supply and demand: If supply goes up,then demand/cost goes down.If food is widely available then it will not be worth selling on the black market.Does Saddam have a fetish for basic foods? I'm sure he has a more refined palate.Saddam is already rich.And to say he would become more so if sanctions were lifted is almost comical.How rich can you be? I'm sure money is ceasing to mean anything to him,if it already has not.

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:

I honestly don't think lifting the sanctions would help the people of Iraq.

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

Denis Halliday

Stahl(interviewer): "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"

M.Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Worth what?

Excelsior · 20-04-2001 9:53am

I know this is off topic but I have to say it:
Bugler and Bob- great writing. Its a pleasure to read.

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Blitzkrieger · 20-04-2001 10:15am

Make that up to support my argument?!!

Originally posted by bugler:
"The food distribution system ... now ensures that under the new Distribution Plan over 2,470 kcal of energy of food is being made available to every man, woman and child in the country ...

I think that supports my argument. You are making valid arguments and I agree with most of what you're saying. My own hyper-hypocritcal view would be to ease sanctions, even though I don't believe it would help the people of Iraq. I think it's the best thing we could do to try to help.

You seem to avoiding the nastier (relative term) side of the situation in Iraq. I think any increase in prosperity the UN allowed Iraq, would mostly go into the pockets of corrupt goverment officials as well as buying weapons and probably re-start (if they ever stoped) the biological and chemical weapons projects. Can we really justify giving Iraq the money to do this? To threaten it's neighbours again, and possibly the world?

I don't think you are suggesting that lifting sanctions would be the end of the problem, and that is the point I am making.

bugler · 20-04-2001 12:21pm

The aforementioned quote from Mr.Tun Myat (and most of the others prove that your point is not valid Blitz.You said the "Oil for food" programme enabled Iraq to obtain enough medicine and food for its people,not to mention education etc.This is patently untrue,and it is not needed to hear it straight from the mouths of the UN diplomats involved.It does not allow for proper sanitation,does not provide electricity and certainly does not boost education.As Bob has mentioned smallpox and its potential come back,lets take that as an example.If large amounts of the medicines needed to combat smallpox(or any other easily prevented disease) were allowed into Iraq do you think it would be immediately accosted and sold on the black market? No.For reasons posted above,that if you allow large scale importation/make it freely available then you are tkaing the power out of the hands of the corrupt.How valuable/expensive are these basic medicines or vaccines? Bob can probably answer that,but I'd estimate that in the large scale of things it is not much.Therefore the fear of them being sold for profit is not a realistic one.Who would buy them?? No-one.

I am fully aware of the "other side" to Iraq.As I have said previously Saddam is not a good or a kind leader.He has waged war on some of his own people by brutal means,and has quashed any oppostion to him by equally savage methods.During the gulf war,when George Bush Snr called on Southern Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam,and they answered that call.They paid dearly.The West offered no military support.They were routed by Saddam's forces as US planes flew overhead and watched it happen.I have seen footage of some of these men being taken away by soldiers after the failed rebellion,bound and blindfolded.They were heading to,at best death, at worst prolonged torture leading ultimately to death.It made emotive viewing....this little period of gulf history has been overlooked by the west of course.

The fact that even Iran and Kuwait(who have both suffered from Iraqi aggression) are also calling for a revision of the sanctions speaks volumes.Even those most seriously affected by Iraq's wrongs have seen the truth: Opposing a despotic and dangerous dictator is one thing.Slowly killing and tormenting the people(and particularly children) unfortunate enough to live in his country is another.

Excelsior · 20-04-2001 12:42pm

Bugler, is the sanction position that America takes central to its propoganda?

As far as I can see, as long as we are lulled into thinking an evil despot called Saddam is planning to kill us, we won't notice the slow destruction of OUR democracies.
Is there anything to the concept that they are trying to distract us from our real local issues with this bo***man and to hell with the consequences for Iraqis?

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Clintons Cat · 20-04-2001 6:58pm

I know greenbeen already said it but i think,the west has forgoten the lessons of the Versailles treaty.
IMO the continuation of the sanctions is a reflection on the lack of policy rather than a continuation of any kind of strategic policy.
I am hard pressed to think of any situation where ecconomic sanctions have single handedly toppled a dictator.The fact that Sadamn used the tenth aniversary of the gulf war to reitterate his claims to Kuwait(a claim no other state arab or otherwise regognises)shows how little rehabillitation the concept of continuous ecconomic pressure has upon a totillitarian state.
It is my opinion that no US President will be willing to be the one who lifts the sanctions upon iraq whilst sadamn is alive and in power,fearing being seen as weak.
In my veiw it is the duty of the European Heads of state to follow the Arab Nations lead and call for a total reveiw upon the sanctions implementation.Thereby circumnavigating the obstinance of those unwilling to loose face in the current circumstances.

bugler · 20-04-2001 7:26pm

Valid point, Clinton.It would be a brave president who allows the lifting of the sanctions.A great irony of all this is that while paying lip service to the idea of over-toppling Saddam it doesn't entirely suit. Having a bo*** man in the Middle East allows the US to keep a military presence there,under the pretence of preserving Kuwait/keeping calm in the region. Has "g-e-y" been censored?? *sigh*

And yes Excelsior, Saddam's despotic tendencies are played on to the full.The US can't dispute the death figures,and they won't try.As Albright(former secretary of state) said in the interview I quoted above,they seem to think "it" is worth it."It" is this:The hoax punishment of Saddam.
The sanctions were implemented so as to portray punishment to have been meted out to Saddam for his incursion,and initially they received good support.The problem the US now has is that if they drop the sanctions then it will seem like Saddam has gotten away with it,he'll be back to where he was circa 1990.He probably would not pass up on the opportunity to depict it as so either,he would indeed gloat

.So the sanctions go on,except as this whole thread has pointed out the only people who are suffering are the ordinary people of the country.Yet for fear of being seen as having backed down the West will continue to punish them.

Excelsior · 20-04-2001 11:14pm

I think you are on ethical and morally shaky ground Blitz.

I understand your fears that Iraq might one day unleash hell on the cities of the Western world. (I think this is unlikely, personally)
But in the effort to prevent that possibility ever occuring, we (as in the Western World) can not produce what is effectively the same result in Iraq. Can you not see that the ends do not justify these means?

At all.

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 20-04-2001 11:42pm

Blitz- I think you've been reading too many US propaganda magazines (Time and NewsWeek chief amongst them, with a sprinkling of Soldier of Fortune magazine). The *only* reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was to correct a colonial injustice. It's the same reason India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan, and the same root cause of the Korean and Vietnam wars. Let's be frank here- even *if* out of all the corruption and confusion that currently exists in Iraq- and *even if* they manage to put together a coherent weapons program- they don't have a weapons delivery system of any accuracy or worth. 90% of the Scuds that were launched at Israel missed their target packages- it was psycological warfare (as was the US blindly firing Patriot missiles to try and intercept them- not what the missiles were designed for).

That said- don't you think it's up to the Middle East to decide if something should be done about Iraq...I mean, it's Europe and the EU that decides what's to be done about the Kurdish problems in turkey...shouldn't the OAS be allowed to do the same for Iraq?

And let me be frank here- I would rather Saddam Hussein be allowed to develop a thousand VX warheads than see one Iraqi child die unecessarily. I have heard my fellow countrymen, British folks and other Europeans eulogize about them as "casualties of war". That statement's ludicrosity doesn't even bear thinking about. Those folk obviously never saw a child die of starvation or disease. Have you ever seen a child dying of starvation Blitz? I have- while working for MSF- it brings tears to the eyes of the hardest soul- seeing mothers unable to feed their children and having to watch them waste away. I can think of nothing worse.

Marina, a colleague of mine who worked with MSF in Iraq told me that children were dying of simple strains of TB, Rubella and Streptococcus mycium. Her superiors told her that it was only a matter of time before smallpox(!) returned...a disease that the WHO thought it had eradicated forever. This state of affairs patently did *not* exist before post-war sanctions were introduced. History shows that it is better to help a nation to rebuild than to subjugate them into submission. We're not at war with Iraq anymore, and certainly not with its children.

Fanataic or no(and he's not) Saddam Hussein isn't stupid. The combined might of three European militaries is arrayed against him, and not that far away. There is no way in hell he would attempt a chemical or biological attack on surrounding nations. His airforce and army, once the best in the region are now shadows of their former selves. There is no conceivable way he would be able to restructure a weapons program from food aid. Food aid(and medical aid) is non-transferrable. You can't sell it to third party sources for money- and such funds would be easily traceable if done domestically.

Sure there's potential for abuse- but as Excelsior said- the ends do *not* justify the means (not always anyways- but certainly not in this case).

In fairness Blitz- you've qualified your remarks (and your Dogbert avatar's sooooooo cuuuuute) so that's fair enough- but believe us(or bugler's superbly researched quotes)- lifting sanctions would halt the starvation and perhaps even reverse it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

Blitzkrieger · 21-04-2001 11:03pm

Good point Clinton

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
The *only* reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was to correct a colonial injustice.

I'm guessing that because of * * that you don't believe that, cos "Oh.....my.....gawd"!

Also, I can't believe you would think that I would want to starve children to prevent someone making weapons of mass destruction. My whole post was that I do want the west to help the people of Iraq. It's not a long post and I'm surprised that you missed it.

I also don't want Iraq to have the ability to make wmd. The point I'm making is that lifting the sanctions wouldn't neccessarily help the people of Iraq, and wouldn't be close to helping stability in the region. I don't know what a good solution to the problem would be, and I doubt if you do either.

I'll end my post with the same point I ended the last one with, which was then totally ignored. Lifting the sactions would not be the end of the problem.

bugler · 21-04-2001 11:46pm

Lifting the sanctions would go a great distance in solving the problem of starving children and terrible infant mortality rates.
The *'s don't mean he doesn't believe it!
I'm not too bothered about stability there. There is only so much you can do,and in the case of sanctions,as has been said by many they are morally wrong.There is no reason not to lift the sanctions! They are not hurting Saddam! They are not making the region more stable! They are destroying Iraqs ordinary people and its infrastructure.All in the supposed belief that they are preventing Saddam becoming more dangerous.Well they are not.The US did not want N Korea to develop nuclear weapons,yet they did.It can't really be stopped.And it can't be considered moral or decent to decimate a whole population in the pursuit of stopping it.

Paladin · 22-04-2001 12:25am

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
The *only* reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was to correct a colonial injustice.

Im sure that with a little thought, you would agree that this statement is not entirely accurate Bob? [sarcasm]Obviously the huge wealth in terms of oil had no attraction[/sarcasm]

.

Still though, Sadam ordered many atrocities and I for one will not be sorry when he dies.
Lift sanctions so iraz can fully import food and medicine. The common people need help.

I think Blitz is right in his point that for the most part, sadam would abuse the lifing of sanctions to help himself rather than the people. It is ridiculous however, to think he might be ousted by a society uneducated and starving.

bugler · 22-04-2001 12:41am

Saddam would exploit the lifting of a forklift if it suited him.that was never the point of this thread though

daveirl · 22-04-2001 6:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 23-04-2001 5:08am

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:

I'm guessing that because of * * that you don't believe that, cos "Oh.....my.....gawd"!

Also, I can't believe you would think that I would want to starve children to prevent someone making weapons of mass destruction. My whole post was that I do want the west to help the people of Iraq. It's not a long post and I'm surprised that you missed it.

I don't know what a good solution to the problem would be, and I doubt if you do either.

I'll end my post with the same point I ended the last one with, which was then totally ignored. Lifting the sactions would not be the end of the problem.

By the * * I mean an accent or emphasis to be placed on that word- in other words- *yes* I do believe it Blitz- and with good reason. If oil was the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait- I would be very surprised indeed. Firstly- if oil is the goal- why not simply take and hold the Ramallah oilfields in Saudi? They are closer and tactically better defended to the east. If it was a statement of international opinion- why not have a crack at Israel? At the time, Iraq was the only nation capable of challenging for military dominance in the region- and it would certainly have pleased the other Arab nations.

No, Kuwait was invaded because it was historically always the 19th province of Iraq (look it up if you don't believe me...) To make a political statement to his people and make Iraq a united country once more, he took Kuwait.

Blitz tells us that lifting sanctions "won't end the problem". It depends what problem he means here- if he means child malnutrition, infant mortality and other ailments- history, precedent and geopolitical study PROVES that the raising of sanctions will curtail these issues.

If he's discussing the problem of Saddam Hussein still being in power...well that's a little tricky. Saddam Hussein folks...is an elected (yes, you read that right, an ELECTED) leader. The only reason Iraqis don't vote him out is that the Ba'ath party is the only party capable of maintaining unity in an otherwise disunited nation. In fact- without the ruthless iron glove of power, it's likely Iraq would break apart, destabilizing the region in a fashion much worse than the breakup of the Soviet Union.

As such- there is no stable or conceivable way to dislodge him from power. Now as for these "fearsome" (sic) WMD's Blitz- what proof (beyond questionable doubt) do any of us have that these WMDs are or ever have been developed to a significant level? Especially at the current moment?

WMD is little more than a pathetic excuse in truth- even if they were developed, Iraq is sitting between several allied armies and squatting in an electronic box that records every phone conversation, military movement and other suspicious activity. WMD from Iraq threatening the world's security?! Don't make me laugh- that statement has alarmist written all over it.

Blitz also puts it to us that he doesn't know the answer and neither do I. Well I do know the answer as a matter of fact. I read it on boards actually- I didn't know it at first. The plaudits for first posting this idea on boards go to bugler. We have both gone to lengths (bugler to great lengths) to show you that lifting sanctions will improve the welfare of the Iraqi people.

That's all for now- I've got to stop getting up this early

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Victor en Mortis=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 23-04-2001).]

Blitzkrieger · 24-04-2001 3:26pm

I've made my point and I don't think I'm going to convince you but being the pedantic guy I am I can't help but keep arguing

If you want to emphasise something either italisise it put it in bold OR EVEN SHOUT IT! (click on the *UBB Code is ON to the left of the reply box to find out how). Putting *s around it usally means action. E.g. if I was talking about George Dub'ya Bush I'd say : *cough* moron *cough*

history, precedent and geopolitical study PROVES

no they don't. History, precedent and geopolitical study don't prove anything, though they could be strong indications.

I'm not going back into the child nutrition thing cos nobody will acknowledge my point even though Bugler proved it

As for invading Kuwait - The 19th province or Iraq legitimised the invasion in the eyes of arab nations, who would have done nothing about it without western interference. They probably wouldn't even have helped the west in desert storm if they weren't so afraid of Iraq's power. But that doesn't mean that it is the reason Sadam invaded. Most people think oil is the main reason, with distracting people from domestic problems and grabbing an easy victory a distant second. You could probably add a dash of insanity to the mix too.

As for wmd. (ffs have to leave now, edit later )

LET ME FINISH FFS!

chemical and biological weapons are far cheaper than nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The main expense would be hiding these from the outside world. Though a chemical weapons plant looks very like a fertiliser plant and a biological warfare lab looks very like a cancer research lab, it's fairly obiovious that if there is no trucks going from there to farms, it's not fertiliser plant. Lifting the sanctions on Iraq would give Sadam the money to hide even more of these plants than he probably already has.

And I can't believe you don't think that Iraq has these weapons. Why else would the UN inspection teams be suddenly denied from entering a seemingly inocuous building? And if you don't think these weapons are a threat to the rest of the world, go read up on their capabilities.

[This message has been edited by Blitzkrieger (edited 25-04-2001).]

bugler · 24-04-2001 4:59pm

Errr you claimed that the oil for food programme provided enough for food,medicine and education for all the iraqi people,which I "proved" was wrong.Also,the fact that you think proved the point about child nutrition stated that though people were getting the food they needed other essential supplies(clothing,medicine) and ended up forgoing this food and selling it in order to get these more apparently more essential items. I don't think its fair to say that its their own fault their selling their food,as you seem to be implying.If they were being adequately provided for then they would not be selling it,and would not be dying of malnutrition.If they are getting enough and are adequately catered for why are all these people and cjildren dying? Oh I forgot its because of the most evil man in history Saddam, *groan*.

Blitzkrieger · 25-04-2001 8:06am

I didn't say the people of Iraq were getting enough food, healthcare, etc. What I said was the oil for food programe was designed to allow Iraq meet these needs. Read the post(s) properly will ya?

Your assertion that the food distribution program ensures everybody receives however-much-it-was energy per day proves that at least part of it is working. Where it's failing is that so much is channeled into the military, and into Sadam and his general's pockets. If this money was being used correctly and it wasn't enough, the sanctions would be eased instantly.

Which brings us back to Sadam. It's all his fault that the sanctions were imposed and that his people aren't getting the benefit of the oil for food program. Couple this with the use of chemical weapons on his own people, the indiscrimate bombing of Israel, the invasion of Kuwait and god knows how many other attrocities. Do you still think he's not 'evil'?

bugler · 25-04-2001 6:49pm

Truly gotten to by propaganda.To say its Saddams faul that the sanctions are in place is merely convenient for those who support them.The UN is responsible for the sanctions, not Saddam.Israel violated the same mandate that Iraq did when it invaded Southern Lebanon illegally.No sanctions were imposed.By applying the same logic you use here,its Israels actions were responsible for the sanctions against it.Except of course no sanctions followed.Why was this? Because the UN did not seek(was not allowed) to impose any.Sanctions are unmerited because the only people they hurt are the ordinary citizens of Iraq.

As for your continued defence of the Oil for food programme,you said it allowed for enough food and healthcare and education for the ordinary Iraqi,yet this is untrue.Yes a good job is being made of getting them the set level of calories(and blitz,its the Iraqi government who get it to them), but this is rendered useless by the continued drastic shortage in other essentials.It is shameful of us to claim that they are getting enough nutrition when their situation dictates that effectively they are not.Your attitude Blitz,seems to be that of the pirates in the simpsons.After hijacking the ship homer and his friends are on,they force them to get into a net,then raise them up,and cut the rope,dropping them into the ocean.As the pirate says just before cutting the rope,"For liability purposes,it is the ocean that will kill you." It seems we are sending a similar message to the people of Iraq.You are getting enough food,you should not die of malnutrition,if you do,its not our fault,we gave you enough food.
This won't do.

I'd be interested in where your assumption that most of the money is diverted to the military and away from the peoples essential needs comes from.
Also,as have been quoted above some of the UN officials administering the Oil for food programme have quit saying it is morally questionable as well as making things worse,and is not the answer to the problem(as the sanctions also are not).I'm not sure why you insist you know better.
As for Saddam being evil,well thats relative.
During world war 2 the allies firebombed civilians in Dresden,aswell as intentionally targetting civilians with nuclear bombs in Japan.Were these governments also evil? Israeli supported militias entered the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila and massacred thousands of palestinian women and children, so does this make the Israeli government evil too?

Until people are prepared to accept that it is the sanctions that are the cause of the problem then the problems will not go away.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 26-04-2001 4:24am

Very well Blitz...if you want to argue over what are essentially semantics- I'll oblige- and rephrase- the lifting of sanctions according to precedent, history and 3 major geopolitical studies would indicate strongly that major black market trafficking of scarce essentials would be reduced almost to nil. I'm astonished that you addressed the argument in this way- when history, recent precedent and geopolitical study points to the same conclusion- that's good enough to be classified as proof by even the most cynical of political scientists or historians.

As for the notion that provisions were made for adequate food and medicine in the food for oil programme- these provisions were obviously insufficient! They failed to take into account Iraq's inherent lack of infrastructure and inability to transport foodstuffs and medicine effectively! Without sanctions- foreign aid could effectively reach desperate people who need it far easier than with sanctions. This is indisputable. "Trade sanctions imposed on an oil-producing desert nation acts as a death-sentence for that nation's children, the current food-for-oil programme notwithstanding."- according to Dr. Mark Watterus, head of the ECOSOC committee in the UN. Now if he thinks sanctions are the main cause, and there is evidence of strong indications then surely the point is no longer open for debate?

Iraq's motive for invading Kuwait

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for oil? Besides having vast reserves of this inelastic commodity themselves, OPEC prices favored Iraq! Invading Kuwait for oil would almost inevitably drive down OPEC prices. Not that I'm suggesting Iraq's solution to this little economic glitch (ie, torching Kuwait's northern oil fields) was the moral or correct thing to do- but it does demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that oil was NOT the main reason behind the invasion. The reacquisition of prestige (read fear) within the OAS plus the restoration of a lost province are more then reasonable motives for invasion. Such take-overs have historically not been resource-driven. Indonesia's invasion of East Timor comes to mind- if the people of Kuwait didn't like Saddam's rule, then they would have had every right to refuse his rule. The fact of the matter is that the average Kuwaiti was indifferent to whether the bloated sheikhs, or and overbloated ego like Saddam was in charge of them.

As for WMD- you seem to have missed my point completely. It doesn't matter how deadly they are, it doesn't matter how well-concealed they are and it does not matter whether the funds are available to finance their development or not. All that matters is whether Iraq has launch capability. The answer to that is a resounding NO. You need to consider Blitz, that Iraq doesn't have a single working fire-control tracking station. Firing a missile or artillery payload blind won't work- you need a huge radar dish that would send every allied plane carrying HARM's streaking towards it. In short, no such launch capability exists. As for concealment- you don't hide a signal that big. Saddam could have all the WMDs ever made, the ability to finance more, the ability to conceal them and their development, and certainly the will to use them. But without a viable delivery system- the problem is only a theoretical one. And who ever said that Iraq deserved special attention insofar as WMD's were concerned? Iraq didn't sign the NPT, neither have India, Pakistan and Israel. The last three nations certainly all have WMD capability. I would argue that Ariel Sharon is only slightly less likely to fire these missiles in anger than Saddam Hussein. Yet we don't see UN weapons inspectors poking their noses into Israel, India or Pakistan. And those three nations all have highly capable delivery systems.

Without basic launch capability- any fears over WMDs are alarmist at best.

As for not letting UN safety inspectors into a seemingly innocuous-looking building-

Did it ever occur to you that a country possesses state secrets other than WMD? It is the right of every state to protect its secrets- the official secrets act in Britain, and the CI act its counterpart in the US are there for a reason. And coming back to your own standard of proof just because there's an innocuous building which UN inspectors are denied access to doesn't PROVE anything at all. There has not been a shred of conclusive proof recently that Iraq has WMDs. Show me an article which demonstrates material and irrefutable proof and I'll reconsider that statement. But I'll save you some time here- no such proof has yet been found. Shouldn't we be giving nations the benefit of the doubt here? Innocent until proven guilty and all that?

This sort of cynical isolationism of a single nation when other (allied and friendly nations for the most part) have comitted the same and worse "crimes" is unacceptable. With the level of armed defense surrounding it, E-LINT penetrating it and a lack of launch capability- there really is nothing to be remotely worried about.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=

Blitzkrieger · 26-04-2001 9:44am

This is going to take all day

You guys always sound to me like those socialist nutters who are always outside that park on the Grand Parade shouting at people who don't give a damn. "Capitalism is evil, America is evil, etc." You're like Mulder times ten. And you're right! I'm actually a CIA agent trying to poison your minds!

You mind if I call you spooky from now on?

To say its Saddams fault that the sanctions are in place is merely convenient for those who support them.

Who was it that invaded Kuwait?

I'd be interested in where your assumption that most of the money is diverted to the military and away from the peoples essential needs comes from.

How many enormous mansions does Sadam have? What kind of cars do his generals ride around in? Look at the size of the fat ****s!

As for Saddam being evil,well thats relative.
During world war 2 the allies firebombed civilians in Dresden,aswell as intentionally targetting civilians with nuclear bombs in Japan.Were these governments also evil? Israeli supported militias entered the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila and massacred thousands of palestinian women and children, so does this make the Israeli government evil too?

I used ' ' around the evil to indicate that I was quoting you, rather than agreeing with the use of the word. Evil? Possibly. Wrong? Definetly.

Very well Blitz...if you want to argue over what are essentially semantics

I was kinda nit-picking but there's a good reason. History indicated that germany would attack through the low countries and a fat lot of good that did the allies.

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for oil?

I know almost nothing about how much oil is in which country but doesn't Kuwait have more oil than Iraq? Just having oil isn't all though. It takes enormous resources to set up any large scale extraction, so Kuwait might have had more oil-producing capacity.

The reacquisition of prestige (read fear)..... ......are more then reasonable motives for invasion.

Didn't I say that?

All that matters is whether Iraq has launch capability

You've got to be kidding me! Inject someone with a dose of a biological weapon and put him on a plane to the sex disease capital of europe (Dublin) to shag a few birds and spread it around and there's your launch system. A plane ticket is much cheaper than a scud missile isn't it?

Firing a missile or artillery payload blind won't work- you need a huge radar dish that would send every allied plane carrying HARM's streaking towards it

Why do you think that is? It's because people who know more about wmd than you or me know the danger posed.

There has not been a shred of conclusive proof recently that Iraq has WMDs.

No there hasn't been. I can take a good look at a steak by sticking my head up a cows ass, but I'd rather take the butchers word for it. Numerous UN inspectors believe that Iraq has these weapons, and have asked to inspect certain facilities and been refused. It's not proof but why else would they be refused, unless Iraq had something to hide?

Yossarian · 26-04-2001 10:25am

I was kinda nit-picking but there's a good reason. History indicated that germany would attack through the low countries and a fat lot of good that did the allies.

So the BEF and French army moved into the low countries and were taken by surprise when the main attack took place at Sedan...

Blitzkrieger · 26-04-2001 12:40pm

not sure what your point is?

The allies were expecting an attack through the low countries cos histroy indicated it. They went forward to meet it and the germans circled around behind them.

bugler · 26-04-2001 6:03pm

Eh...your reasoning is bizarre.That comment about spreading biological disease must surely be one of the most ridiculous ever posted on these boards.Do you think that stopping the importation of food and basic medicine is preventing that type of situation developing?! Do you honestly think that if Saddam wanted to create strains of anthrax or whatever that the thing that would stop him would be sanctions on food and medicine? Wake up.Do you think that allied planes flying over Iraq would intercept every consignment or blow up every laboratory or suspected laboratory which was involved with the ferrying/creation of lethal bio-weapons?! Blitz you are like a living breathing press release
(a misleading one at that).

My god?! Fat Iraqi's? They must be corrupt! and stealing every penny.

How many mansions and palaces do you think the leaders of Kuwait,Brunei,Jordan, UAE and Egypt might own? I suppose they are all siphoning funds away from their desperately needy people too? Their people are not as desperately needy as in Iraq,obviously.If you would care to elaborate on how Saddams numerous palaces make him more suspect than any other leader of misappropriation of funds, then I'd be grateful.

You still don't grasp the situation at all either,concerning the sanctions imposed. Despite having it pointed out to you on more than one occasion,you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying. The sanctions are the doing of the UN.Not Iraq.You can say that they were implemented for whatever reasons all you like,but you can't change that fact.If you say they were put in place because of the invasion of Kuwait,then I'd like to ask why Israels' invasion of S.Lebanon did not yield sanctions? after all Blitz,it invaded another sovereign nation,it was condemned as illegal by the UN,so why were the sanctions not implemented?! Oh I forgot.The UN imposes sanctions.Not the country on te wrong end of them.
Finally,let me recap with some of your words of wisdom,laid out in al their glory.

How many enormous mansions does Sadam have? What kind of cars do his generals ride around in? Look at the size of the fat ****s!

Well I have replied to the mansions comment above,but perhaps you would care to tell us how many mansions he does have? Also,I saw Lt General Dave Stapleton (top irish military brass)riding around in a mercedes,so he's obviously corrupt,and has been stealing our money,lets get him! You lead the charge Blitz! Though I did see another General riding in a Ford Escort so he must honest.My father is mildly over-weight,now i know why,he's mildly corrupt!

Why do you think that is? It's because people who know more about wmd than you or me know the danger posed.

Who would these people be? Allied generals and political leaders?! If the pro-sanction media(however mild)or pro-sanction governments told you sh*t was sugar you'd put it in your tea,and you'd probably tell us it tasted sweet.If you think Bob and I are Mulder like figures then you're doing a very good job of playing the government agent covering up.Except in this case its not knowlingly covering up,its just sheer stubborness and gullibility,and in many cases merely stating what suits you.I point to the above quotes to back that up.To say your head is in the sand would be a huge understatement.

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 26-04-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 26-04-2001 10:59pm

Bravo bugler- I doubt anyone on boards could have said it as well.

To address the minutiae of issues that are left:

Originally posted by Blitz:
Capitalism is evil, America is evil, etc. You're like Mulder times ten. And you're right! I'm actually a CIA agent trying to poison your minds!

1) We never said America is evil- merely the US government- there's just a slight

difference there. Capitalism is evil, but a necessary and forgiveable evil- most capitalists would tell you that.

2) You state that Saddam brought the sanctions upon himself by invading Kuwait. Utterly and totally ludicrous- the sanctions were imposed *AFTER* the Iraqi withdrawal. Sanctions Blitz, are used to make a nation comply with condition "X"- you would probably argue that this condition would be justified for UN weapon inspections- if that is the case, then your reasoning is petty as bugler has shown. Whether sanctions are in place or not has incredibly little bearing on the status of a nation's WMD- especially if that nation is callous in fair redistribution of state funds(as Iraq undoubtedly is)- bugler pointed this out well.

2) "History indicated that germany would attack through the low countries and a fat lot of good that did the allies."- Blitz

That's why people use geopolitical studies, recent precedent, relevant predicto-politics and means-testing Blitz. History can be misleading, but history along with these other means ALL pointing to the same conclusion??! Get over it- this point is no longer open for debate- raising sanctions will ease domestic strife and child malnutrition. Trying to seed an unquestionable argument with doubt doesn't make it any more questionable.

3) Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq were the top three oil-producing nations at the time. Iraq not only had better production capacity than Kuwait, but was selling it's oil at near-optimum prices. As such, it's almost certain that oil wasn't the reason Iraq invaded.

You've got to be kidding me! Inject someone with a dose of a biological weapon and put him on a plane to the sex disease capital of europe (Dublin) to shag a few birds and spread it around and there's your launch system. A plane ticket is much cheaper than a scud missile isn't it?

4)*sigh* Someone's been reading too many airport novels methinks....
That is not how a biological attack is conducted. And even if we were living in Tom Clancy's world- there are no commercial flights leaving Iraq at the moment. And as for the biological agent being sexually transmitted- lol! Not one such agent known is ST'd....unless you're suggesting that Iraq's going to send over their HIV+ patients and infect us all so we die in 10-20 years time?...please- and Bugler and me are spooky conspiracy theorists? At least we don't spam sci-fi make-believe on boards- which is all your notion of how a biological weapon works is.

As for the notion that people "suspect" the existence of WMD's- you're going to have to do better than that. Using the standards described by UN weapons inspectors- practically every nation on the planet could be harboring WMDs. With the amount of dual-use technology- I could be classified as a holder of WMDs! Oh well...time to barricade me in my flat and impose sanctions then...damn...back to the pot noodles it is

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=

sam · 27-04-2001 9:20am

iraq always had more oil than kuwait, and oil production capacity and everything.

the reason saddam was ****ed at the kuwaiti's was cos they were extracting from shared oil wells too fast, and selling it dirt cheap (mainly to america), oil wells dont exactly share national borders

Excelsior · 27-04-2001 12:32pm

Pleasure to read Bugler and Bob.

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

bugler · 28-04-2001 12:55pm

Thanks for the compliments,I return them with interest

However I may not be around for any follow up to this,as impending exams loom,and I am truly in sh*t of the deepest variety.
Behave yourselves while I'm gone

Blitzkrieger · 28-04-2001 2:15pm

You know, sometimes I wish I was a moderator. Then I'd just move this thread to the Trolls board and be done with it

It really is getting a bit pointless. You guys seem to constantly forget or ignore my central point, which I laid to rest ages ago because I knew I wasn't going to convince you. But you still keep bringing up stuff we've alreay argued over! Get over it ffs!

I bet none of you could even post what my point was, you're so taken with your own.

Originally posted by bugler:
Do you think that allied planes flying over Iraq would intercept every consignment or blow up every laboratory or suspected laboratory which was involved with the ferrying/creation of lethal bio-weapons?!

Pretty much what I said.

Originally posted by bugler:
How many mansions and palaces do you think the leaders of Kuwait,Brunei,Jordan, UAE and Egypt might own?

Are you really so naieve you think that is a good argument?

Originally posted by bugler:
elaborate on how Saddams numerous palaces make him more suspect than any other leader of misappropriation of funds, then I'd be grateful.

Originally posted by bugler:
You still don't grasp the situation at all either,concerning the sanctions imposed. Despite having it pointed out to you on more than one occasion,you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying. The sanctions are the doing of the UN.Not Iraq.You can say that they were implemented for whatever reasons all you like,but you can't change that fact.If you say they were put in place because of the invasion of Kuwait,then I'd like to ask why Israels' invasion of S.Lebanon did not yield sanctions? after all Blitz,it invaded another sovereign nation,it was condemned as illegal by the UN,so why were the sanctions not implemented?! Oh I forgot.The UN imposes sanctions.Not the country on te wrong end of them.

This would be one of those arguments we've already had.

Originally posted by bugler:
Who would these people be? Allied generals and political leaders?

I think you're refering to me talking about UN inspectors.

I've no doubt that some of the inspectors are spies and some have alterior motives. I've also no doubt that some of them were chosen because they are experts in their field. I'll repeat myself cos I love this quote

"I can get a good look at a steak by sticking my head up a cow's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
And as for the biological agent being sexually transmitted- lol!

For ****s sake Bob either read up on biological weapons or **** off. The majority of diseases are spread by transmission of fluids. Do I have to go into the birds and bees for you?

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:

As for the notion that people "suspect" the existence of WMD's- you're going to have to do better than that.

Well if you do want to get into the "minutiae of issues" I do suspect the existence of WMD's and I suspect the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do too

rofl

I also like this comment :

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
the sanctions were imposed *AFTER* the Iraqi withdrawal.

Yes, and the English withdrew from America, the Germans withdrew from Russia and the North Koreans withdrew from South Korea.

Originally posted by Excelsior:
Pleasure to read Bugler and Bob.

Tbh I hope that's cos if I said black you'd say white Excelsior. Some of what Bugler and Bob are saying is ludicrous.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 28-04-2001 7:32pm

Blitz- you seem to be digging yourself deeper and deeper in here...your last post was vague on issues raised by bugler, and patronizing and offensive otherwise.

There are numerous fallacies of argument in the last post, but I will address only a few. Allow me to elaborate...

Pretty much what I said.

I fail to see how the preceding statement correlates in any way with arguments you have presented Blitz- in simple terms- you have not explained how bugler's statement was a concession to your view. I can't see a supportable argument anywhere that does.

Are you really so naieve you think that is a good argument?

Now that's just rude- it really is. Rather than calling him naive in a patronizing fashion, perhaps it would show more decorum if you responded to the argument? Or don't you have a response? I think Bugler's point is a valid one- just because Saddam eats well and his people don't isn't conclusive evidence that he is misappropriating funds at their expense.

I've no doubt that some of the inspectors are spies and some have alterior motives.

Bugler never said they were spies- this statement only shows that you are convinced bugler's spouting conspiracy theory instead of making the valid arguments that he does.

Bugler's point was that those sources are biased in the extreme. The arms of the Security council investigative committee are little more than extensions of US foreign policy. Most people acknowledge this- they are hardly likely to paint a flattering picture of Iraq as far as WMDs go. It's a concept called redundant search- and happens to scientists too. If you are convinced of something's existence, then it is human nature to pursue the possibility of its existence. Classic human paranoia- pursuit of such a goal even in the absence of all hard evidence.

I do suspect the existence of WMD's and I suspect the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do too

Wow- another irrelevant example- bravo. The US developed the atomic bomb at a time when the existence of WMDs was not known- I'm trying to think of a more irrelevant historical comparison, but I don't think I can. A positively ludicrous comparison.

For ****s sake Bob either read up on biological weapons or **** off. The majority of diseases are spread by transmission of fluids. Do I have to go into the birds and bees for you?

One of the most obnoxious statements I've seen on the Humanities forum since I've been on boards- without exaggeration. I don't enjoy being patronized- and especially not on a subject I happen to know a fair amount about. You obviously don't know what I do for a living Blitz- I'm a qualified medical practicioner. And two of my favorite subjects in med school were forensic medicine and toxicology. So thanks for the incredibly scientific breakdown of infection in that little quote up there, but I know how infections are transmitted. Very few diseases are sexually transmitted- you can't give someone a cold via intercourse- the virus's primary transmittive pathway is an aerosol one. It's not so simple as "exchange of bodily fluids" as you so expertly put it...blood-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria CANNOT be ST'd...the average layman knows this, never mind someone who is medically qualified.

I also know that my colleagues at USAMRID have assured me that the type of biological contaminative attack that you have described is impossible. Biological agents need to have a very precise incubation period and an effective disabling mechanism. Very few organisms have evolved as such- their goal is to survive and propagate, not serve a political or strategic goal. As such, a STD which can be used as a biological weapon is still very much science fiction and airport novel material. So please don't tell me to check my facts- I read most of the major medical journals as my profession demands- including the USAMRID annual reports. But of course, being the highly informed individual that you are, you know who USAMRID are and what they do, don't you?

Until you educate yourself on biological weapons, their means of transmission and associated pathologies- don't patronize me. I have better things to do with my time than reply to savants of ignorance who post inaccurate information in a patronizing fashion.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Habeas Corpus=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 28-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 28-04-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 28-04-2001 11:08pm

Thanks Excel- although I feel that more credit goes to bugler for actually starting the topic, and more importantly evidencing his arguments. It truly was a pleasure to read.

Now all we need is a reply from Blitz...I can't wait personally

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Roma Victor Transparentis=

The conclusive proof that UN sanctions against Iraq are great!

Comments