Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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?

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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).

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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.

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

'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

Re: well, that is a circular argument *NM*
 

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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).

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

'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

Re: iraq guns vs butter straw man
 

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