Saddam Arrested

[nelg]

YES! WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT MILITARILY.

That does not mean that we should have not tried to change Iraq. I would not be opposed to the CIA assasinating Saddam if it ahd to be done. But, there are much better ways of going about changing things. It would have taken a lot longer, but the end result would likely be much better.

Hmmm, let's see. The UN tried for over 10 years to "help" Iraq. In that time how many thousands/millions suffered or died? Damn you are cruel.

I REALLY hope you see the irony in this.....

I believe it is documented somewhere that civillians in the TENS OF THOUSANDS died due to lack of basic chemicals for clean water etc etc... depleted uranium diseases (children born with abnormalities)....

So it is the fault of others that a country that is resource rich as Iraq that they could not afford "basic chemicals for clean water etc etc... " :? .

Yes Saddam was a bad man and I am HAPPY he is gone, as are several of my Iraqi friends, but the US (well administration at least) IS NOT a 'good' guy.... rather, just someone trying to make it best for themselves, no matter who they got to kill....

If that was true I would have suggested they invaded your country .

 

[Tahir2]

nelg there were sanctions in place. This was not an issue of affordability but availability (particularly medicine).
Saddam didn't suffer frm the sanctions, the people of Iraq did.
I thought that was pretty much understood....

 

[RussSchultz]

nelg there were sanctions in place. This was not an issue of affordability but availability (particularly medicine).

The sanctions explicitely allowed medicines and humanitarian aid.

Saddam didn't suffer frm the sanctions, the people of Iraq did.
I thought that was pretty much understood....

Saddam just took the money and used it to build palaces. Which is one of the reasons I supported removing his regime from power: continued sanctions weren't hurting him, but the people of Iraq.

 

[nelg]

nelg there were sanctions in place. This was not an issue of affordability but availability (particularly medicine).
Saddam didn't suffer frm the sanctions, the people of Iraq did.
I thought that was pretty much understood....

I am aware of the sanctions. The point I was trying to make is that if the U.N. program was inadequate to supply such staples then that is the forum where it should have been addressed. Also lets not forget the very large black market for oil that generated vast sums of money. Would any one care to guess how much of that money went to food or medicine? As to my last point I should say that Canada would probably be the prime target if those were the sole motives of the U.S..

 

[RussSchultz]

Heh. For a bit of levity:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105875,00.html[/url]]In Tikrit, about 700 people rallied in the center of town Monday chanting "Saddam is in our hearts, Saddam is in our blood." U.S. soldiers and Iraqi policemen yelled back: "Saddam is in our jail."

 

[Tahir2]

I'm sorry but Russ I dont believe you are correct at all in both points, but the 2nd point is mere speculation on both of our parts however the first point there is clear evidence for the fact that humanitarian and medicinal aid was strictly controlled and restricted causing many deaths. Not only that but the economic sanctions restricted the development of the civilian economy and essential services (water purification etc) causing diseases.

"Degraded medical conditions in Iraq are primarily attributable to the breakdown of public services (water purification and distribution, preventive medicine, water disposal, health-care services, electricity, and transportation). . . . Hospital care is degraded by lack of running water and electricity."

According to Pentagon officials, that was the intention. In a June 23, 1991, Washington Post article, Pentagon officials stated that Iraq's electrical grid had been targeted by bombing strikes in order to undermine the civilian economy. "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'" said one planning officer at the Pentagon. "Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions -- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions."

Iraq cannot legally export or import any goods, including oil, outside the U.N. sanctions system. The Oil for Food Programme, intended as a limited and temporary emergency measure, was first offered to Iraq in 1991, and was rejected. It was finally put into place in 1996. Under the programme, Iraq was permitted to sell a limited amount of oil (until 1999, when the limits were removed), and is allowed to use almost 60 percent of the proceeds to buy humanitarian goods.[2] Since the programme began, Iraq has earned approximately $57 billion in oil revenues, of which it has spent about $23 billion on goods that actually arrived. This comes to about $170 per year per person, which is less than one half the annual per capita income of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Iraqi diplomats noted last year that this is well below what the U.N. spends on food for dogs used in Iraqi de-mining operations (about $400 per dog per year on imported food, according to the U.N.).

The severe limits on funds created a permanent humanitarian crisis, but the situation has been worsened considerably by chronic delays in approval for billions of dollars' worth of goods. As of last July more than $5 billion in goods was on hold.

Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure -- electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment -- as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.

Revisionist history? Why I remember a UK comedian going to Iraq carrying medicines and other humanitarian aid was blocked... this was circa 2000 - before any mention of a new Iraqi war. He was of course what you would call a "nutjob."

They were explicitly allowed but the sanctions were designed to weaken the whole of the Iraqi populace not just the powers that were, perhaps to encourage a rebellion and oust Saddam internally. It backfired however when the Iraqi people were not so welcoming of invading forces once the war began. Many people expected the foreign forces to be welcomed but after 12 years of suffering (in addition to the previous suffering) what did anyone expect?

To revise history and put spin on it or ignore crucial facts doesnt help anyone, IMHO.

 

[RussSchultz]

Lets compare and contrast

The sanctions explicitely allowed medicines and humanitarian aid.

Iraq was permitted to sell a limited amount of oil (until 1999, when the limits were removed), and is allowed to use almost 60 percent of the proceeds to buy humanitarian goods

Where's the disconnect that brings about this conclusion:

Russ I dont believe you are correct at all in both points

 

[Tahir2]

I will revise what I stated.. you are *probably* correct on your first point
.
I stand by what I said regarding the nature of the sanctions and the effects it had on the people of Iraq rather than the monster of Iraq.

For more info to see where I am coming from you may read this if it suits you:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

Chapter 5 may be of interest to you especially the quote by the UN Secretary General.

the humanitarian programme was never intended to meet all the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population or to be a substitute for normal economic activity. Also the programme is not geared to address the longer term deterioration of living standards or to remedy declining health standards and infrastructure.

 

[Clashman]

To add on to that, I believe there was a strict policy in place within the U.S. government, (and to a lesser extent the British), to use their veto power to block, delay, or render useless many of the humanitarian goods. I believe a shipment of eggs was once stopped because of their potential 'dual use' role by the U.S. Both Clinton and both Bushes were equally guilty of all of this, although I honestly believe that the sanctions started out as a legitimate attempt to curtail the Iraqi regimes power and only eventually grew into the monstrosity that they became, (which was magnified by the fact that Iraq's economy had been virtually destroyed in the Iran/Iraq and 1st Gulf Wars, leaving Iraq in a much different position than, say, South Africa a decade or two earlier).

Probably the best article ever written on the inner workings of the sanctions program came out in Harper's about a year ago. It's called "Cool War" by Joy Gordon. You can find it here:

http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?pg=1)

 

[ByteMe]

I REALLY hope you see the irony in this.....

I believe it is documented somewhere that civillians in the TENS OF THOUSANDS died due to lack of basic chemicals for clean water etc etc... depleted uranium diseases (children born with abnormalities)....

Yes Saddam was a bad man and I am HAPPY he is gone, as are several of my Iraqi friends, but the US (well administration at least) IS NOT a 'good' guy.... rather, just someone trying to make it best for themselves, no matter who they got to kill....

I said died/suffered. Millions did suffer. Most here do believe Bush is in fact the good guy. I am one. Even if he wasn't..... what he is doing is. (If Bush was out to "further" himself no matter who he had to kill... France and Germany would already been taken over)

 

[Natoma]

And so the spread of the FUD begins.....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3726744/

Saddam daughter wants an international trial
She tells Arab TV her father was drugged by Americans

...........

Raghad said her father must have been drugged before his capture -- her explanation for the humiliating pictures of a man who was seen by many Arabs as a hero for his anti-Western stance.

“A lion remains a lion even in captivity. Do you think they would have been able to capture him if they had not drugged him? I am sure that they could not have done so,â€￾ she said.

“I am really proud that this man is my father. We all know the reason why he was displayed in the way he was. Where is the democracy, where is the immunity that presidents enjoy?â€￾

 

[RussSchultz]

"Where is the democracy, where is the immunity that presidents enjoy?â€￾

Someone unclear on the concept.

 

[function]

I said died/suffered. Millions did suffer. Most here do believe Bush is in fact the good guy. I am one. Even if he wasn't..... what he is doing is. (If Bush was out to "further" himself no matter who he had to kill... France and Germany would already been taken over)

So invading (or trying to invade) France and Germany (France being a nuclear power) would "further" Bush?

Surely I've misinterpreted this post ... :?

 

[jandar]

Americans are Europeans. Get over it.

only 3/4 of my blood is of European descent.

1/4 is native to North America (at least the last 10000 years)

 

[akira888]

Americans are Europeans. Get over it.

That's far from true. I and around 32 percent of America have no white blood whatsoever.

 

[Humus]

In the end we're all africans anyway.

 

[dksuiko]

In the end we're all africans anyway.

ahhaha.

Love the timing.

 

[ByteMe]

I believe my wifes's ancestors were monkeys.

 

[o.d.]

If that was true I would have suggested they invaded your country .

hee hee



you know it is scary that this is even a question.... will the US strike us? and not because it is my country but rather because that is the real issue the world is talking about.... that the US is no longer worthy of trust and by having so much military might, it scares us.

 

[ByteMe]

If that was true I would have suggested they invaded your country .

hee hee



you know it is scary that this is even a question.... will the US strike us? and not because it is my country but rather because that is the real issue the world is talking about.... that the US is no longer worthy of trust and by having so much military might, it scares us.

If this fear helps your government improve then great (and your government should be afraid). I don't expect we would invade anytime soon. But given another 9/11 then all bets are off.