iraq guns vs butter straw man

the thing is, iraq couldnt spend money on butter even if they wanted to. thats what tight sanctions are all about. below is an opinion piece, but has links to source material.


http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html


heres the first 2 paragraphs


BEGINQUOTE


The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.


"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."


ENDQUOTE


brad

That only deals with one specific aspect of sanctions; you can't say from this alone that Saddam couldn't spend money on butter because there are other forms of butter. But let's look at this water purification issue a little more deeply if we can.


Why was chlorine prohibited from export to Iraq? Was it because Iraq used in it chemical weapons? Why were the sanctions in place anyway? Did the application of these sanctions have anything to do with Iraq dishonoring the 1991 cease-fire agreement and expelling U.N. Inspectors?


I don't know the answers to much of this and I'm not saying the US or UN was entirely blameless. But Saddam chose the course with his actions, knowing whatever bad effects might befall his people could have been avoided had he acted differently. And he could still have reversed course at any later date and had sanctions lifted, but he didn't. So at a certain point the rest of the world has to consider whether capitulating to an evil regime in order to take internal pressure off its citizens is the right course to follow. Given that Saddam's regime was and is extremely dangerous, it is a difficult question indeed, balancing the humanitarian outlook against the need to restrict Iraq from further buildups and evil actions.


I guess we should have just taken control of Iraq eleven years ago and found some Islamic Democrats to run for office over there;-) Seriously though, I think a lot of misery could have been averted had Saddam been ousted but who can know for sure.

im not really saying US policy was bad, im just saying it was a conscious decision to inflict serious damage on the civilian population. thats all. i dont think that point can be argued.


brad

I will pull a semi-Mr. Blonde argument and say that decision was made by powers both outside Iraq and inside Iraq.


I will however concede that regarding the water issue, it was not entirely a guns vs. butter matter. Thanks for providing that info. (the first I've been aware of it).

If the Iraqis can acquire nuclear material on the black market, then they could certainly acquire water treatment technology.

is that a fact or an opinion. what are your assumptions.


brad

For someone that claims to be 13 years old, you sure sound like a twin John Walker.

Let's just bake Arafat some cookies. He and Saddam and Osama will all behave if we just show them that they are loved.

'For someone that claims to be 13 years old'


thats my brother. (not John Walker)


brad

Another pointless addition to the forum. Well done, Ray.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. Almost anything less dangerous, costly and rare should be easier and cheaper to acquire. Wouldn't you agree?

first off its an assumption that saddam was able to get nuclear on black market. (it may be that the sanctions allowed some material, since iraq has nuclear power plants.)


secondly, its seems to me something like a plutonium core is a one shot deal, as opposed to a couple tons of chlorine per week.


finally, all the preceding (mine and yours) was our opinion. in my original post it was the (expert) opinion backed up by facts.


brad

I am quite leery of "expert opinion" in general (althought it is at times valuable). That expert opinion apparently does not go so far as to address the extent to which Saddam, in the final analysis, was responsible. Saying it was "our" decision and responsibility, which may be true to an extent, does not consider the internal Iraqi responsibility. For instance, I don't think the facts can back up the notion that it was 100% the responsibility of powers external to Iraq and that there was nothing Iraqi powers could have done internally to alleviate these problems (even if the facts can show a causal relationship between the sanctions and the water issue which led to deaths).

Also I wonder what Allbright or Halliman would have said if asked whether Iraq could have purchased water-treatment technology on the black market, had they attempted to do so. I'll lay 100-1 Saddam never tried.

'even if the facts can show a causal relationship between the sanctions and the water issue which led to deaths'


what do you mean? the US bombed water purification plants and then under the sanctions iraq couldnt import the raw materials and machine tools to rebuild and run them. because of this the marginal groups (young, elderly, sick, etc.) paid a heavy toll.


not only that, the US knew *in advance* that this result would happen. so it seems that the US thought that whatever the reason it was a side necessity that iraqi civilians would have to die.


thats what it looks like to me. if you say that saddam couldve unconditionally surrendered (which i agree with), then you must admit that the US policy was to apply pressure on iraq to capitulate by means of degrading the civilian population. (which as the article i posted is against the geneva convention).


bottom line: US waged war against civilians to pressure iraqi leadership. well, it is total war now. when the martyrs come to america, lets hope we get them before they get us.


brad

but this does not address the argument that he might have been able to buy those supplies on the black market...and in fact probably could (since almost everything is available on the black market for a price).

I don't think it is. Also, has it been shown that the US especially targeted Iraqi water treatment plants for bombing?

'and in fact probably could (since almost everything is available on the black market for a price).'


well, this is a circular argument.


but i mean, for a one shot deal (plutonium core) then i agree. for a weekly supply of chlorine to purify the water then im not so sure.


brad

off the top of my head.

--------------------------------

(somewhere over ferrara)


yossarrian: theyre trying to kill us!


arfy: yossarrian, theyre not trying to kill *us*. its a war, theyre trying to kill everybody.


yossarrian: they shooting at us! they trying to kill us!


arfy: (shrugs)

----------------------------------

anyway, from my original post link-


BEGINQUOTE


The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."


But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.


ENDQUOTE


brad

If it could be shown that the US:


1) deliberately and selectively bombed Iraqi water treatment facilities (and those which would affect citizens more than army units)


2) got sanctions in place for the specific purpose of making it hard for Iraq to treat its water while knowing that the greatest burden would fall on the young, ill and elderly, and


3) took the above steps for the primary purpose of applying internal pressure to Iraq, then I would probably condemn those actions. I'm not aware that this is what happened and frankly I don't know much about the subject in detail. I suspect there is a lot more to it than what has been laid out thus far in these threads. However I would not condone applying severe and lethal pressure to citizenry in order to hopefully produce internal pressure for a change in leadership. I hope that is not precisely what happened. However even if it did I would believe that Saddam could still be held partially at fault, for probably not taking steps to mitigate the effects. Tragically, he likely did anything he could to exacerbate the effects (anything that wouldn't look too bad, that is) so that he could use the results as an argument to have sanctions as a whole lifted.

Another post by a racist crminal.

"Brad" is just manifestation of Alger's sick mind.

not true. i have my own sick mind.


brad