|
Sink me, want some war old fish? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So if they were pissed at us pre-september 11th when we weren't invading anybody, and they'll be even more pissed at us if we do invade ... doesn't that leave us in a catch 22? If anything I say invade to give them a good reason to be pissed at us haha.
Is there any more cognac? |
cheers *clink* |
|
|
| HardTrance81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So if they were pissed at us pre-september 11th when we weren't invading anybody, and they'll be even more pissed at us if we do invade ... doesn't that leave us in a catch 22? If anything I say invade to give them a good reason to be pissed at us haha.
Is there any more cognac? |
I'll Third that, HERE HERE......
Oh.... Do we have any good Port something over 50? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | as oreilly says ..."Where am I wrong?" |
Well, let's see.
| quote: | | 1) no matter bushes reasons the avg american is the one over there and they want to liberate the people, they dont hate iraquis. I believe this is gonna be a great humanitarian effort. (for those who say civilians gonna die...welcome to war, it ing sucks) |
The deliberate killing of civilians (and it is deliberate - they know that this war will kill hundreds of thousands civilians, yet they refuse to wait until other options have been exhausted) hardly falls under the broad scope of the term "humanitarianism". Nor does the deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War. Nor does the deliberate blocking of the imports necessary to rebuild these facilities after the war. Nor does the deliberate blocking of humanitarian aid during this time. Nor can the plans for the post-war "military state" be considered "humanitarian", nor the likely dismissal of "democratisation" of Iraq in favour of another pro-western totalitarian regime. Perhaps the long US history of interference in Iraqi politics goes against the principles "humanitarianism" usually stands for, not to mention the fact that the US stood by and continued to sell Hussein the chemical and biological agents necessary to gas the Kurdish people in the 1980's. Hmmm.... come to think of it, American involvement in Iraq over the years has been anything but humanitarian in nature, so why should I believe that this war is likely to be any different?
| quote: | | 2) once peace is established we can LEAVE and take our bases out and hopefully middle east will forget the weve done there. |
As JohnSmith alluded to, I doubt these memories will be easily forgotten. You can't just bomb a nation for 12 years then replace its government with a puppet government of its choosing (and the country will be literally run by the US until military occupation is done with - most likely two or more years after the war is over) and expect the people not to notice.
| quote: | | 3) i think (besides britain) that america is one of the last moral nations (again if bush is doing it for another reason, the people make a nation, not the leader; the army is what is going to be there, having to send letters to their moms and dads letting them know they are doing the right thing). |
I'll ignore the long history the US has in violating human rights at home and abroad, the broken and unratified international treaties, it's long history of meddling politically and militarially with nations to serve its own ends (resulting in civilian deaths and oppression world-wide), the damage it is doing to the planet because it refuses to "compromise" its way of life (Bush's words, not mine) and the explicit need ellucidated by top officials of both the present and past administrations to have at least some control over middle-eastern oil fields and politics, to just say this:
It is at best naive and at worst dangerous to believe that your nation is the most moral, or that your nation is in any way "representative" of global morality. Such self-righteousness borders on fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is usually preceded by an inherent inability to think or question objectively and/or exposure to propoganda of some sort. It is also, ironically, the kind of thinking that leads to terrorism in its more extreme forms, and is exactly the kind of thinking that the US is so eager to irradicate from the Middle-East (by replacing fundamentalist totalitarian regimes, with pro-Western secular totalitarian regimes).
Am I calling the US government terrorists? No, not at all. I'm just saying that when neither side admits it may be wrong, you're half-way to war already. Nothing can be solved if a nation believes it is always right. Saddam Hussein believes that he has a right to power (even though there were obvious problems with the elections) and that the US is evil. George Bush believes that he has a right to power (even though there were obvious problems with the elections) and that Iraq is evil. Both would claim to be the moral agents in this game - so who is right? Is there any way we can judge which nations stand for the betterment of humanity and which do not? And don't bother to point out Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity, because for every act he's committed I could name an equivelent act committed by the US governments over the same period of time, which just goes to reinforce my point about selective thinking and moral ambiguity - no nation is ever in the right all of the time.
Anyway I'll leave it there. If you want to continue this, bring it into the Political Forum. |
|
|
| Orbax |
i disagree with every point you made, you ignored previous comments that already have dealth with those issues, and i find you to be misinformed and quoting non existant statistics. There is nothing to argue against, so i really dont see this continuing in a different forum to be beneficial
Ill send my servant down to the underground castle where i keep my ports, hopefully we have something semi-decent, at least in the $2000 a bottle range |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
so here is where the elite can gather and talk about their ideas. This isnt a political thread, just a mini-chillout room for those of us with controversial (the right) ideas. Ignore the cold people with runny noses pressing their cheeks agsinst the glass trying to get a glimpse of whats going on, speaking of which, "release the hounds!"... |
what are you, an egomanic? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
i disagree with every point you made, you ignored previous comments that already have dealth with those issues, and i find you to be misinformed and quoting non existant statistics. There is nothing to argue against, so i really dont see this continuing in a different forum to be beneficial
Ill send my servant down to the underground castle where i keep my ports, hopefully we have something semi-decent, at least in the $2000 a bottle range |
I don't want to have to drag this on longer than necessary, but firstly I can't see anywhere in the thread where any of the issues I raised have been addressed, secondly I fail to see any statistics whatsoever, so your assumption that I made them up strikes me as rather odd.
If you require any links supporting what I've said, then you need only ask. I didn't include them in my earlier post because I didn't see any point in digging them up in anticipation of a response like the one you gave. You completely ignored everything I said, then said that there's nothing to argue against when I can find plenty of issues you can address for me.
Thus, if you fail to respond with something sensible, I'll have no choice but to assume I'm right and shall proceed to declare myself the pinicle of all human existence. En guarde. |
|
|
| trintiy |
Hey Renegade, Here's the death toll from the first war in Iraq.
The total Iraqi death count was 205,000. It's estimated that 56,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed during the war, and that another 35,000 died as Saddam Hussein crushed Kurdish and Shiite rebellions that rose up after the United States stopped fighting. The largest number of deaths -- 111,000 -- Daponte attributed to "postwar adverse health effects."
Compiled by Beth Daponte for Greenpeace.
Can you please explain how you've come to the conclusion that The deliberate killing of civilians (and it is deliberate - they know that this war will kill hundreds of thousands civilians, yet they refuse to wait until other options have been exhausted) hardly falls under the broad scope of the term "humanitarianism". Nor does the deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War.
So is you rhetoric based on fact or merely your opinion.
Ching Ching ol chaps would you mind passing the cognac! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Hey Renegade, Here's the death toll from the first war in Iraq.
The total Iraqi death count was 205,000. It's estimated that 56,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed during the war, and that another 35,000 died as Saddam Hussein crushed Kurdish and Shiite rebellions that rose up after the United States stopped fighting. The largest number of deaths -- 111,000 -- Daponte attributed to "postwar adverse health effects." |
Depends on where you draw the line. This is what I posted in a thread in the Political Forum:
| quote: | "Most estimates put the Iraqi death toll in the Gulf War in the range of 100,000. Due to the increased accuracy of aerial warfare, the proportion of Iraqi civilians killed was much less than it had been in previous air campaigns. At the same time, because the bombing was the heaviest in world history -- consisting of tens of thousands of sorties -- the absolute numbers were quite high. Most estimates of the civilian death toll are approximately 15,000."
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/021205.html
That is, bombing in itself killed about 100,000 Iraqis, 15,000 of which were innocent civilians. The rest, I presume, were soldiers (many of whom were gunned down - unarmed - while retreating back to Iraq). But that isn't the full story. That figure fails to take into account:
The deaths and birth defects caused by weapons deliberately coated with radioactive material (which also affected some US soldiers):
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/feb98/0089.html
The deaths caused by the abhorent conditions refugees from the war were subjected to:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/men...tm#_Toc32640932
The deaths caused by the deliberate destruction of Iraqs water system:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/020...Open_Letter.htm
http://free.freespeech.org/american...sonedWater.html
And other vital infrastructure including "Iraq's electrical grid..... key industries, and transportation arteries" (and refusing them to allow the importation of the materials necessary to rebuild them):
http://rwor.org/a/v23/1110-19/1119/iraq_water.htm
The deaths caused by the deliberate blocking of oil contracts legal under the "oil-for-food scheme":
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...aq1/iraq004.htm
http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200...0630_44353.html
The deaths caused by the economy destroyed by the Gulf war and the subsequent embargos (u/e 60%, inflation 60%, foreign debt 330%):
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_2.htm
The thousands of deaths caused by subsequent bombing missions post-gulf war:
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
The deaths caused by the deliberate blocking of over $5 billion worth of UN approved humanitarian aid:
http://free.freespeech.org/american...sAboutIraq.html
Oh, and then there's the small matter of the deaths caused by the sanctions. Here you can examine the deterioration of Iraqi health care and agriculture caused by the sanctions:
http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html
The 600% rise in infant mortality rates caused by sanctions:
http://www.who.int/archives/inf-pr-1996/pr96-23.html
The impact of sanctions on children:
http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Sanctions.htm
http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
The UNICEF study which shows that sanctions have been directly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children over the period 1991-1999:
http://www.unicef.org/media/publications/irqu5est.pdf
A number of estimates place the death toll caused by sanctions at about 1 - 2 million:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...001/0613cas.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...2002/07indy.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opini...santionop.shtml
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-...c=garf-imp.hinc (more conservative estimate) |
It should also be remembered that this war is different entirely from the first Gulf War, in that in the first one the aim was merely to repel ivading Iraqi forces from Kuwait, whereas this mission involves the removal of Saddam Hussein from Bagdhad. Given this, we can expect military casualties to be higher (on both sides) and - due to the extensive bombing likely to occur over Baghdad - civilian casualties are likely to be much higher as well. If the first Gulf War killed 100,000 Iraqis from the conflict alone (that is, ignoring all subsequent deaths after the conclusion of the war) then this time around the US will be doing pretty well to keep casualties down below 250,000 - and that's not to speak of the subsequent deaths resulting from the mass exodus of refugees, the further destruction of infrastructure and the likely resource shortages (particularly food and medicine) to result from these things.
In other words, I'm not sure if that Gulf War statistic was meant to be supporting what I'm saying or rebutting it.
| quote: | | So is you rhetoric based on fact or merely your opinion. |
It's based on fact. If I have an opinion it's only because I feel I have enough information on the subject to form one.
Once again, if you don't believe/understand anything I've said here, you need only to ask and I'll provide you with links to support what I'm saying. |
|
|
| Orbax |
just because its on the internet doesnt mean its true...:nervous:
and they already have plans for hospitals being taken over and food distribution centers being erected. They know that if they dont make this a massive humanitarian effort hes going to get impeached |
|
|
| trintiy |
Finally a well thought out rebuttal. Thank you Renegade.
However, information about this issue thrives online and is tailored for the organizations drafting the reports. Like the anti-globalization movement it complements, the anti-sanctions drive, which gathered steam in the United States from 1998-00, spread its message and won its converts on the Internet, through sites such as the Iraq Action Coalition, International Action Center, Nonviolence.org’s Iraq Crisis Antiwar Homepage and Voices in the Wilderness, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Citizens Concerned for the People of Iraq, advocacy journalist John Pilger’s home page, anti-sanctions leader Robert Jensen’s Iraq “Fact Sheets,” and dozens of others.
Though PARTISAN, most of these sites feature a collection of links to independent surveys, breaking wire-service stories, and articles chosen from hundreds of media outlets. As in the Kosovo War, advocacy sites, human rights groups and interested non-journalists have taken advantage of the Web’s ease of publishing and hyperlinking capabilities to provide a far greater quantity of sites on the topic at hand than the traditional media itself.
The best, and probably the single most comprehensive starting-point to address the issue, is the Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq (CASI), which was launched at the University of Cambridge in 1997. CASI is more promiscuous, and less partisan, than its counterparts in the U.S. and Middle East. The society’s biases (which it backs up with good documentation) are mostly on display at its Guide to Sanctions, and on its very active e-mail discussion lists.
Fact-hounds will get a bigger kick out of CASI’s Information Sources section, which links to literally thousands of articles and studies, divided up into U.N.-related documents, reports associated with governments, activities by non-governmental organizations and religious institutions, academic research reports, news sources (specialist, Arab, British and otherwise), and other miscellaneous links. No news organization that I have ever seen has compiled a more exhaustive and impressive set of online resources dedicated to a single topic.
CASI has also posted the entirety of a study hailed by many as the most convincing study to date on child mortality in Iraq, a 1999 survey by Columbia University Professor Richard Garfield.
The following are some highlights from the book
Myths and Facts About Iraq
Released by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
August 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Everything that's wrong with Iraq's economy is because of sanctions.
Fact: Iraq enjoyed a strong economy until Saddam Hussein took power and launched attacks against his neighbors--Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990--with devastating results for Iraq. It took 5 years for Saddam to accept the oil-for-food program. Saddam also has failed to implement policies that would boost economic growth and generate job opportunities to improve the population's living standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The Iraqi people do not have an adequate supply of medicine because of sanctions.
Fact: Sanctions have never prohibited or limited the import of medicine. In fact, the UN has urged the Iraqi regime to order more basic medicines, but Baghdad has refused. Saddam has been criticized by the UN for intentionally hoarding medicines in warehouses in government controlled Iraq instead of distributing it to civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit humanitarian contributions to Iraq.
Fact: Sanctions do not prohibit humanitarian contributions, Saddam does. Since June 1998, Saddam has publicly refused a number of humanitarian contributions while claiming that his people are suffering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit the import of pencils, books and journals, and desks for schools.
Fact: Basic educational supplies including pencils, books, and desks have never been prohibited by UN sanctions. They have been sent to Iraq regularly since 1991 and nearly $64 million of supplies for the education sector, including photocopiers, and printing and lab equipment, have entered Iraq under the oil-for-food program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from working in Iraq and the UN can run whatever programs it wants in country.
Fact: Saddam has refused to allow most NGOs into Iraq and sometimes impedes UN workers trying to oversee oil-for-food programs. In fact, Saddam launched a series of terrorist attacks against NGO and UN workers in northern Iraq in the early 1990s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prevent Iraqis from going on the Hajj.
Fact: Sanctions have never prevented Iraqis from making the Hajj. The Security Council exempted Hajj flights from flight restrictions and has offered the use of oil-for-food revenue to fund private Iraqi Hajj travel, but Baghdad rejected the plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prevent travel to the Muslim holy sites in southern Iraq.
Fact: Sanctions have never prohibited travel in or out of Iraq. The UN Sanctions Committee approved a ferry service allowing pilgrims in the region to travel to An Najaf and Karbala.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions have crippled Iraq's ability to export oil.
Fact: Iraq's oil exports are approaching pre-war levels. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was exporting about 2.6 million barrels per day of crude oil. Its current crude oil exports have averaged about 2.2 million barrels per day in recent months, and the regime said it plans to increase exports to about 2.7 million barrels per day by yearend, which is higher than pre-war exports. In addition, Iraq is smuggling 2.8 million barrels of oil per month through the Persian Gulf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions on Iraq will never be lifted.
Fact: Sanctions remain in place because Iraq refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions. The requirements for lifting sanctions have not changed since they were first imposed in 1991. UN Resolution 1284, which Iraq rejects, lays a path for the eventual suspension and lifting of sanctions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The international community has not taken measures to care for the Iraqi people.
Fact: The UN designed the oil-for-food program in 1991-unprecedented in size and scope-to provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Saddam rejected it outright for four years and then slow-rolled it for another year and a half. The substantial expansion over the years has increased provisions for Iraqis. The international community continues to look for ways to improve the program, despite Saddam's effort to undermine humanitarian efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The oil-for-food program has failed to meet basic needs of the Iraqi people and it never will.
Fact: Oil-for-food has made significant improvements in the lives of the Iraqis and will continue to do so. The increase in revenue under the oil-for-food program from $4 billion in the first year of the program to a projected $20.4 billion this year means there is a tremendous amount of money available for humanitarian goods. The government of Iraq must choose to make that happen. In northern Iraq, where the UN controls the humanitarian relief programs, child mortality rates are lower than they were before the Gulf War. However, in southern and central Iraq, where the Iraqi Government controls the oil-for-food program, mortality rates have doubled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: There is a limit on the amount of food Iraq can import.
Fact: There has never been a limit on the amount of food Iraq can import.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Contract holds have kept a majority of goods from entering Iraq.
Fact: Since the oil-for-food program was implemented in March 1997, the UN Sanctions Committee has approved about 90% of Iraqi contracts received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The Iraqi Government is doing all it can to make the oil-for-food program work.
Fact: The regime is slow to order and distribute goods and Saddam's lack of cooperation on monitoring makes it difficult to ensure goods are equitably distributed to the Iraqi people. Baghdad has rejected UN recommendations to increase protein enriched goods for malnourished children and pregnant women. The Iraqi Government has also rejected assistance by all but a few Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other outside groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The UN provides substandard goods under the oil-for-food program.
Fact: Under oil-for-food, Saddam, not the UN, chooses what is purchased and from whom. Saddam's choice of suppliers is politically motivated. Over one-third of all contracts have gone to Iraq's three most vocal supporters on the Security Council. Iraq also continues to oppose placing mobile testing laboratories for humanitarian goods under oil-for-food at UN entry points that would insure the quality of goods delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq does not have the resources to support the Iraqi people.
Fact: Baghdad has significant resources available to alleviate much of Iraq's humanitarian suffering, but Saddam does not spend the money on the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food program allows Iraq to sell as much oil as required to meet humanitarian needs. From December 1999 to June 2000, Iraq earned approximately $8.3 billion from oil sales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: There is little food available in Iraq.
Fact: More than 13 million metric tons of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq since the first deliveries of the oil-for-food program began in 1997. In fact, Baghdad has been caught exporting dates, corn, and grain outside of Iraq while claiming the Iraqi people are starving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq is in compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions.
Fact: Iraq has not complied with UN Security Council Resolutions that call for dismantling weapons of mass destruction programs, and returning Kuwaiti and other nations' missing persons and POWs and Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq has accounted for all Kuwaiti POWs and missing persons during the Gulf War.
Fact: Iraq has still not accounted for some 600 missing Kuwaitis. For over a year, the regime has refused to cooperate with the ICRC in this humanitarian endeavor. Baghdad also will not allow the UN Kuwaiti Issues Coordinator entry into Iraq to discuss POWs or the property Iraq stole from Kuwait.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: UNSCOM inspectors behaved badly and deserved to be thrown out of Iraq.
Fact: The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. Iraq's obstructionism and refusal to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, who were carrying out a UN Security Council mandate, prevented the inspectors from fulfilling their mission and they had no choice but to leave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Saddam is not more brutal than other dictators.
Fact: Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988 was one of the largest chemical weapon attacks ever waged against a civilian population. Even today, Saddam continues to practice systematic torture, executions, forced displacement, and repression against the Iraqi people. The US is currently seeking an indictment of senior regime officials for these atrocities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Only ethnic minorities (not Sunnis) in Iraq are subject to harsh treatment by the regime.
Fact: Any group opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime is subject to brutal repression. The regime has moved against its people-be they Arab, Kurd, or Turkoman, Sunni, Shia, or Christian-through expulsion from their homes, razing of villages, arbitrary arrest, execution, and torture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
Fact: As a result of its refusal to cooperate with the UN disarmament regime, Iraq maintains the capacity to produce missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The absence of UN inspectors from Iraq has afforded Saddam the opportunity to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has already launched two bloody wars; one against Iran in 1980 and the other against Kuwait in 1990. In the last couple of years, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly issued public threats against his neighbors, including calls for the overthrow of a number of regimes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Saddam's palaces are used by the Iraqi people.
Fact: The nearly 80 palaces and VIP residences in Iraq are purely for the enjoyment of Saddam, his family, and key supporters as a reward for their loyalty. Saddam's inner circle is immune from harsh living conditions facing the general population.
With Osama Bin Laden making Iraq sanctions one of his main complaints, and with critics of the war against Al Qaeda pointing to Iraqi death numbers as Exhibit A in the 'Why do they hate us?' theory, news organizations have finally gotten around to sorting through the rhetorical war of wildly divergent numbers and facts. For the first time perhaps ever, the traditional media has begun making up ground on the non-journalist Web sites that took such a commanding early lead.
The war-supporting New Republic posted a column by Peter Beinart Sept. 20 declaring that sanctions are not responsible for malnutrition and disease, based on a June 2001 TNR special report about northern Iraq. Slate.com followed with an 'explainer' column Oct. 9 trying to track down the number of dead children. The Guardian UK came out the next day with a column tracing the origins of some of the most inflated claims. Keith Marsden of the Wall Street Journal published a numbers-debunking piece in November (not yet available online), and both The Nation and The National Review Online took healthy swings at the issue in early December.
A medium once associated with rumor and opinion, has transformed into the raw-materials information factory from which mainstream journalism can derive finished products in the form of opinion columns. Activists are learning the value of presenting a better library, while news organizations are relegated complicated topics to the op-ed pages. With each new global conflict, the equilibrium is changing a few more notches.
I guess it all depends on who's propaganda you choose to believe. |
|
|
| fr0st |
| quote: | Originally posted by trintiy
Finally a well thought out rebuttal. Thank you Renegade.
However, information about this issue thrives online and is tailored for the organizations drafting the reports. Like the anti-globalization movement it complements, the anti-sanctions drive, which gathered steam in the United States from 1998-00, spread its message and won its converts on the Internet, through sites such as the Iraq Action Coalition, International Action Center, Nonviolence.org’s Iraq Crisis Antiwar Homepage and Voices in the Wilderness, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Citizens Concerned for the People of Iraq, advocacy journalist John Pilger’s home page, anti-sanctions leader Robert Jensen’s Iraq “Fact Sheets,” and dozens of others.
Though PARTISAN, most of these sites feature a collection of links to independent surveys, breaking wire-service stories, and articles chosen from hundreds of media outlets. As in the Kosovo War, advocacy sites, human rights groups and interested non-journalists have taken advantage of the Web’s ease of publishing and hyperlinking capabilities to provide a far greater quantity of sites on the topic at hand than the traditional media itself.
The best, and probably the single most comprehensive starting-point to address the issue, is the Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq (CASI), which was launched at the University of Cambridge in 1997. CASI is more promiscuous, and less partisan, than its counterparts in the U.S. and Middle East. The society’s biases (which it backs up with good documentation) are mostly on display at its Guide to Sanctions, and on its very active e-mail discussion lists.
Fact-hounds will get a bigger kick out of CASI’s Information Sources section, which links to literally thousands of articles and studies, divided up into U.N.-related documents, reports associated with governments, activities by non-governmental organizations and religious institutions, academic research reports, news sources (specialist, Arab, British and otherwise), and other miscellaneous links. No news organization that I have ever seen has compiled a more exhaustive and impressive set of online resources dedicated to a single topic.
CASI has also posted the entirety of a study hailed by many as the most convincing study to date on child mortality in Iraq, a 1999 survey by Columbia University Professor Richard Garfield.
The following are some highlights from the book
Myths and Facts About Iraq
Released by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
August 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Everything that's wrong with Iraq's economy is because of sanctions.
Fact: Iraq enjoyed a strong economy until Saddam Hussein took power and launched attacks against his neighbors--Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990--with devastating results for Iraq. It took 5 years for Saddam to accept the oil-for-food program. Saddam also has failed to implement policies that would boost economic growth and generate job opportunities to improve the population's living standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The Iraqi people do not have an adequate supply of medicine because of sanctions.
Fact: Sanctions have never prohibited or limited the import of medicine. In fact, the UN has urged the Iraqi regime to order more basic medicines, but Baghdad has refused. Saddam has been criticized by the UN for intentionally hoarding medicines in warehouses in government controlled Iraq instead of distributing it to civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit humanitarian contributions to Iraq.
Fact: Sanctions do not prohibit humanitarian contributions, Saddam does. Since June 1998, Saddam has publicly refused a number of humanitarian contributions while claiming that his people are suffering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit the import of pencils, books and journals, and desks for schools.
Fact: Basic educational supplies including pencils, books, and desks have never been prohibited by UN sanctions. They have been sent to Iraq regularly since 1991 and nearly $64 million of supplies for the education sector, including photocopiers, and printing and lab equipment, have entered Iraq under the oil-for-food program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prohibit Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from working in Iraq and the UN can run whatever programs it wants in country.
Fact: Saddam has refused to allow most NGOs into Iraq and sometimes impedes UN workers trying to oversee oil-for-food programs. In fact, Saddam launched a series of terrorist attacks against NGO and UN workers in northern Iraq in the early 1990s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prevent Iraqis from going on the Hajj.
Fact: Sanctions have never prevented Iraqis from making the Hajj. The Security Council exempted Hajj flights from flight restrictions and has offered the use of oil-for-food revenue to fund private Iraqi Hajj travel, but Baghdad rejected the plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions prevent travel to the Muslim holy sites in southern Iraq.
Fact: Sanctions have never prohibited travel in or out of Iraq. The UN Sanctions Committee approved a ferry service allowing pilgrims in the region to travel to An Najaf and Karbala.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions have crippled Iraq's ability to export oil.
Fact: Iraq's oil exports are approaching pre-war levels. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was exporting about 2.6 million barrels per day of crude oil. Its current crude oil exports have averaged about 2.2 million barrels per day in recent months, and the regime said it plans to increase exports to about 2.7 million barrels per day by yearend, which is higher than pre-war exports. In addition, Iraq is smuggling 2.8 million barrels of oil per month through the Persian Gulf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Sanctions on Iraq will never be lifted.
Fact: Sanctions remain in place because Iraq refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions. The requirements for lifting sanctions have not changed since they were first imposed in 1991. UN Resolution 1284, which Iraq rejects, lays a path for the eventual suspension and lifting of sanctions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The international community has not taken measures to care for the Iraqi people.
Fact: The UN designed the oil-for-food program in 1991-unprecedented in size and scope-to provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Saddam rejected it outright for four years and then slow-rolled it for another year and a half. The substantial expansion over the years has increased provisions for Iraqis. The international community continues to look for ways to improve the program, despite Saddam's effort to undermine humanitarian efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The oil-for-food program has failed to meet basic needs of the Iraqi people and it never will.
Fact: Oil-for-food has made significant improvements in the lives of the Iraqis and will continue to do so. The increase in revenue under the oil-for-food program from $4 billion in the first year of the program to a projected $20.4 billion this year means there is a tremendous amount of money available for humanitarian goods. The government of Iraq must choose to make that happen. In northern Iraq, where the UN controls the humanitarian relief programs, child mortality rates are lower than they were before the Gulf War. However, in southern and central Iraq, where the Iraqi Government controls the oil-for-food program, mortality rates have doubled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: There is a limit on the amount of food Iraq can import.
Fact: There has never been a limit on the amount of food Iraq can import.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Contract holds have kept a majority of goods from entering Iraq.
Fact: Since the oil-for-food program was implemented in March 1997, the UN Sanctions Committee has approved about 90% of Iraqi contracts received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The Iraqi Government is doing all it can to make the oil-for-food program work.
Fact: The regime is slow to order and distribute goods and Saddam's lack of cooperation on monitoring makes it difficult to ensure goods are equitably distributed to the Iraqi people. Baghdad has rejected UN recommendations to increase protein enriched goods for malnourished children and pregnant women. The Iraqi Government has also rejected assistance by all but a few Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other outside groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The UN provides substandard goods under the oil-for-food program.
Fact: Under oil-for-food, Saddam, not the UN, chooses what is purchased and from whom. Saddam's choice of suppliers is politically motivated. Over one-third of all contracts have gone to Iraq's three most vocal supporters on the Security Council. Iraq also continues to oppose placing mobile testing laboratories for humanitarian goods under oil-for-food at UN entry points that would insure the quality of goods delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq does not have the resources to support the Iraqi people.
Fact: Baghdad has significant resources available to alleviate much of Iraq's humanitarian suffering, but Saddam does not spend the money on the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food program allows Iraq to sell as much oil as required to meet humanitarian needs. From December 1999 to June 2000, Iraq earned approximately $8.3 billion from oil sales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: There is little food available in Iraq.
Fact: More than 13 million metric tons of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq since the first deliveries of the oil-for-food program began in 1997. In fact, Baghdad has been caught exporting dates, corn, and grain outside of Iraq while claiming the Iraqi people are starving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq is in compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions.
Fact: Iraq has not complied with UN Security Council Resolutions that call for dismantling weapons of mass destruction programs, and returning Kuwaiti and other nations' missing persons and POWs and Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq has accounted for all Kuwaiti POWs and missing persons during the Gulf War.
Fact: Iraq has still not accounted for some 600 missing Kuwaitis. For over a year, the regime has refused to cooperate with the ICRC in this humanitarian endeavor. Baghdad also will not allow the UN Kuwaiti Issues Coordinator entry into Iraq to discuss POWs or the property Iraq stole from Kuwait.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: UNSCOM inspectors behaved badly and deserved to be thrown out of Iraq.
Fact: The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. Iraq's obstructionism and refusal to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, who were carrying out a UN Security Council mandate, prevented the inspectors from fulfilling their mission and they had no choice but to leave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Saddam is not more brutal than other dictators.
Fact: Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988 was one of the largest chemical weapon attacks ever waged against a civilian population. Even today, Saddam continues to practice systematic torture, executions, forced displacement, and repression against the Iraqi people. The US is currently seeking an indictment of senior regime officials for these atrocities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Only ethnic minorities (not Sunnis) in Iraq are subject to harsh treatment by the regime.
Fact: Any group opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime is subject to brutal repression. The regime has moved against its people-be they Arab, Kurd, or Turkoman, Sunni, Shia, or Christian-through expulsion from their homes, razing of villages, arbitrary arrest, execution, and torture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
Fact: As a result of its refusal to cooperate with the UN disarmament regime, Iraq maintains the capacity to produce missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The absence of UN inspectors from Iraq has afforded Saddam the opportunity to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has already launched two bloody wars; one against Iran in 1980 and the other against Kuwait in 1990. In the last couple of years, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly issued public threats against his neighbors, including calls for the overthrow of a number of regimes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Saddam's palaces are used by the Iraqi people.
Fact: The nearly 80 palaces and VIP residences in Iraq are purely for the enjoyment of Saddam, his family, and key supporters as a reward for their loyalty. Saddam's inner circle is immune from harsh living conditions facing the general population.
With Osama Bin Laden making Iraq sanctions one of his main complaints, and with critics of the war against Al Qaeda pointing to Iraqi death numbers as Exhibit A in the 'Why do they hate us?' theory, news organizations have finally gotten around to sorting through the rhetorical war of wildly divergent numbers and facts. For the first time perhaps ever, the traditional media has begun making up ground on the non-journalist Web sites that took such a commanding early lead.
The war-supporting New Republic posted a column by Peter Beinart Sept. 20 declaring that sanctions are not responsible for malnutrition and disease, based on a June 2001 TNR special report about northern Iraq. Slate.com followed with an 'explainer' column Oct. 9 trying to track down the number of dead children. The Guardian UK came out the next day with a column tracing the origins of some of the most inflated claims. Keith Marsden of the Wall Street Journal published a numbers-debunking piece in November (not yet available online), and both The Nation and The National Review Online took healthy swings at the issue in early December.
A medium once associated with rumor and opinion, has transformed into the raw-materials information factory from which mainstream journalism can derive finished products in the form of opinion columns. Activists are learning the value of presenting a better library, while news organizations are relegated complicated topics to the op-ed pages. With each new global conflict, the equilibrium is changing a few more notches.
I guess it all depends on who's propaganda you choose to believe.
|
Nice post......I would post something realy long with many sources but i realy dont care tooo because reguardless what i have to say people will still believe peace is a option. When in fact it isn't the general public only hears what it wants to hear and nothing more. the only problem is once we do succeed in removing sadam there is always gonna be someone to step in and take his place. And again the cycle will start again...And war will once again be used to resolve the problem. Peace is just a pipe dream. |
|
|
|
|
