The World's Leading Butcher

@oralloy,

Quote:

Not if Globalresearch.ca says it does.

This is good. This will show you to be the reality-denier that you are. You did not even do a cursory search to find out that what you believe doesn't exist does in fact exist. And you didn't search for it because it shows you to be wrong.

Here:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

What a sad sad joke you are, oralloy.

Not if Globalresearch.ca says it does.

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

In September 2001 Professor Thomas Nagy of George Washington University, D.C., revealed the existence of Defense Intelligence Agency documents “proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War.

"The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.” On May 12, 1996 some of the horrible consequences of this policy were revealed when the CBS news program 60 Minutes reported that roughly half million Iraqi children had died as a consequence of U.S. imposed sanctions.

This led to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s infamous answer to the question, “is the price worth it?” Her reply was yes “we think the price is worth it.” Albright later apologized, not for the murderous policy for which she was partially responsible, but rather for the fact that her answer to the above question had “aggravated our public relations problems” in the Middle East.

http://gna.squarespace.com/home/prof-thomas-j-nagy-how-the-us-deliberately-destroyed-iraqs-w.html

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

This is good. This will show you to be the reality-denier that you are.

Just the opposite. I actually promote reality.

Glennn wrote:

You did not even do a cursory search to find out that what you believe doesn't exist does in fact exist. And you didn't search for it because it shows you to be wrong.

No. I didn't do a search because it is adequate to automatically dismiss everything on Globalreserch.ca as untrue.

As it happened though I did a brief search earlier, when you first raised the issue of the water supply, and I read this very document earlier today.

I don't see how this document supports your claims or contradicts mine however.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

In September 2001 Professor Thomas Nagy of George Washington University, D.C., revealed the existence of Defense Intelligence Agency documents “proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War.

I somehow doubt that documents were ever produced that showed that we were intentionally trying to degrade their water supply.

camlok wrote:

"The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.”

Well yes. I think I've already acknowledged as much earlier in the thread. But "knowing that the sanctions would cause harm and going ahead anyway" is far from "imposing the sanctions with the express goal of causing that harm".

camlok wrote:

Albright later apologized, not for the murderous policy for which she was partially responsible,

The responsibility for any dead children here lies entirely with Saddam.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I don't see how this document supports your claims or contradicts mine however.

Yeah, I knew you'd say that. Guess I'll have to chip away at your denial. Here's something from the New York Times that should help steer you out of your state of denial; unless you're prepared to throw them under the bus, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

And here's something from the Association of Genocide Scholars who will spell all of this out for you.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/nagy010612.pdf

My guess is that you're going to try to dig up some dirt on these people. Good luck with that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The responsibility for any dead children here lies entirely with Saddam.

This is delusional. But what's new?

The United Nations individuals who were in charge of the program quit because they knew what the US/UK were doing to those Iraqi children and Iraqi people.

The notion that the US didn't know is as ludicrous as the notion that they didn't know the crimes they were committing in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Hawaii, the USA, Chile, Ecuador, Angola, ... .

You are only a few steps more delusional than most Americans and other westerners who prance about the threads here pretending they are moral individuals.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Your lying, deeply deceptive nature is further revealed in your "camlok wrote:".

I didn't write anything. I quoted others, experts that you seek to deny with absolutely nothing, zero, nada to back up your delusions.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Yeah, I knew you'd say that. Guess I'll have to chip away at your denial. Here's something from the New York Times that should help steer you out of your state of denial; unless you're prepared to throw them under the bus, too.

I generally respect the New York Times. However that doesn't mean that I will blindly follow them when they are wrong.

The NYT article that you linked seemed reliable enough. However I saw nothing in the NYT article that disagreed with my position. I did learn more facts though about the source of the "half million dead" estimates. I had suspected that the estimates were nonsensical. Now I am confident that they are.

Glennn wrote:

And here's something from the Association of Genocide Scholars who will spell all of this out for you.

Wow. What a bunch of deranged lunatics.

Glennn wrote:

My guess is that you're going to try to dig up some dirt on these people. Good luck with that.

I don't know about dirt, but from the document you linked it is clear that nothing these guys say is true.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

So in your mind, bombing sewage treatment and water purification plants (which violates the Geneva Convention), and then banning the import of chlorine, vaccines, and spare parts necessary to the repair of said sewage treatment and water purification plants says nothing about the intentions of the bombers and blockaders.

Not only that, but you also believe that the detailed calculations concerning the consequences of bombing Iraq's infrastructure--which can be seen in the document at the link below--and the actual bombing of said infrastructure, and the following results, is just a coincidence.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Not a lick of proof, sources or even any rational discussion. Same old oralloy.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

bombing sewage treatment and water purification plants

Hold on here. This is a new allegation. And I am extremely skeptical that it happened.

If we did do it, I'm sure it can be justified once the circumstances come to light. But I really doubt that we did any such thing.

Glennn wrote:

So in your mind, . . . banning the import of chlorine, vaccines, and spare parts necessary to the repair of said sewage treatment and water purification plants says nothing about the intentions of the bombers and blockaders.

Well, yes. That a ban was imposed says nothing about what the motive for the ban was.

The ban (imposed by the UN Security Council, not by the US) was imposed with the goal of preventing Saddam from rebuilding his stockpiles of illegal weapons.

I've seen nothing about a ban on vaccines. But if the vaccines were related to bioweapons research, maybe we did.

Glennn wrote:

Not only that, but you also believe that the detailed calculations concerning the consequences of bombing Iraq's infrastructure--which can be seen in the document at the link below--and the actual bombing of said infrastructure, and the following results, is just a coincidence.

The document does not deal with any bombing consequences. It deals with the consequences of a ban on chemical imports.

As above, I doubt said infrastructure was ever bombed (certainly not by the US).

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

As above, I doubt said infrastructure was ever bombed (certainly not by the US).

Civilian infrastructure:

Allied bombing raids were successful in destroying Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[13][14] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, turning Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most primitive. Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed.

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Gulf_War_air_campaign#cite_note-14
____________________________________________

Do you still believe that the document below has no bearing on the fact that Iraq's infrastructure was targeted?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

"Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq --- Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond "Purely Military Targets" Washington Post, June 23, 1991 ...

The worst civilian suffering, senior [American] officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed --- at electrical plants … Now nearly four months after the war's end, Iraq's electrical generation has reached only 20 to 25 percent of its prewar capacity of 9,000 to 9,500 megawatts. ... "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'" said the planning officer. "Well, what were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions --- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions." … Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy, doctrine and plans for the Air Force, agreed that one purpose of destroying Iraq's electrical grid was that "you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it has to deal with sometime." "Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity," he said. "He needs help. If there are political objectives that the U.N. coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.' It gives us long-term leverage."

http://www.bridgings.org/images/Articles/Iraq-OnDestroyingCivilianInfrastructureDuringTheGulfWar03-22-22-13.pdf

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Civilian infrastructure:

Allied bombing raids were successful in destroying Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[13][14] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels.

Electricity is a legitimate target. No problem with us targeting that.

Glennn wrote:

Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants,

I question the accuracy of this claim.

Wikipedia credits the claim to this article, which does indeed have a short paragraph claiming bombing against water infrastructure:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm

However, I can find little mention of these supposed water infrastructure bombings anywhere else, and I even looked over a pretty detailed report on the bombing campaign:
http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/gwtxt_ch6.html

Glennn wrote:

Do you still believe that the document below has no bearing on the fact that Iraq's infrastructure was targeted?

I still do not accept the claim that Iraq's water infrastructure was targeted.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The World's Leading Butcher's biggest fan.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I still do not accept the claim that Iraq's water infrastructure was targeted.

Imposition of U.N. sanctions in 1991 followed a nearly decade-long war between Iraq and Iran, during which spending on the social welfare system declined. Decades of conflict, including the Iran-Iraq war and the bombing during Desert Storm, damaged or destroyed much of the Iraqi public infrastructure such as water and sewage plants and many public buildings.

https://burgess.house.gov/uploadedfiles/iraq%20-%20humanitarian%20issues%20in%20post-war%20iraq%20an%20overview%20for%20congress.pdf

Reports of Attacks on Water-Treatment Facilities

During a visit to Basra in May, journalist Ed Vulliamy reported that water-treatment plants in Iraq's second-largest city had been bombed, and that the allies targeted both the transformers and the turbines of these facilities. "It was not merely the transformers in the water plants that were bombed," he wrote, "but the giant Japanese-built turbines themselves, which cannot be repaired under the embargo."

Also, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that flour milling facilities and grain storage warehouses were destroyed during the air war . . .

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/CHAP4.htm#P193_33986

Now even if you don't want to acknowledge that such bombings had occurred, the fact is that the electrical system was targeted, which guarantees that water and sewage plants will not be operable. I also provided you with a statement from a U.S. official who admits that not just military targets were attacked. The reason given was that the intended effect was to cause civilian suffering. I won't bring up the Geneva Convention; I shouldn't have to.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Reports of Attacks on Water-Treatment Facilities

During a visit to Basra in May, journalist Ed Vulliamy reported that water-treatment plants in Iraq's second-largest city had been bombed, and that the allies targeted both the transformers and the turbines of these facilities. "It was not merely the transformers in the water plants that were bombed," he wrote, "but the giant Japanese-built turbines themselves, which cannot be repaired under the embargo."

Well, he's a reliable reporter. Here is the article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1991/may/18/iraq.edvulliamy

I am sure though that, if we did target those water turbines, we had a lawful justification for doing so.

Glennn wrote:

Now even if you don't want to acknowledge that such bombings had occurred, the fact is that the electrical system was targeted, which guarantees that water and sewage plants will not be operable.

Electricity is a lawful target.

Glennn wrote:

I also provided you with a statement from a U.S. official who admits that not just military targets were attacked.

That means we targeted dual-use facilities in addition to military-only facilities. It doesn't mean we targeted civilian-only facilities.

Glennn wrote:

The reason given was that the intended effect was to cause civilian suffering.

If any person said we made an attack with that intention, their statement was incorrect.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I am sure though that, if we did target those water turbines, we had a lawful justification for doing so.

I'm sure that you are sure of that. However, what purpose could such destruction serve, if not to inflict collective punishment, which is a violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention?

Quote:

If any person said we made an attack with that intention, their statement was incorrect.

Washington Post, June 23, 1991:

The worst civilian suffering, senior [American] officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed --- at electrical plants … Now nearly four months after the war's end, Iraq's electrical generation has reached only 20 to 25 percent of its prewar capacity of 9,000 to 9,500 megawatts. ... "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'" said the planning officer. "Well, what were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions --- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions." … Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy, doctrine and plans for the Air Force, agreed that one purpose of destroying Iraq's electrical grid was that "you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it has to deal with sometime." "Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity," he said. "He needs help. If there are political objectives that the U.N. coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.' It gives us long-term leverage."

http://www.bridgings.org/images/Articles/Iraq-OnDestroyingCivilianInfrastructureDuringTheGulfWar03-22-22-13.pdf
_____________________________________________

Because it goes against your beliefs, you've ruled the above statement as incorrect. Of course, you would know better than the planning officer who made the statement.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I'm sure that you are sure of that. However, what purpose could such destruction serve, if not to inflict collective punishment, which is a violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention?

I don't know nearly enough about the alleged incident to begin speculating.

Glennn wrote:

Because it goes against your beliefs, you've ruled the above statement as incorrect.

No. Instead I disagree that this statement admits to intentionally causing civilian suffering.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I don't know nearly enough about the alleged incident to begin speculating.

That's the case with everything you pretend to discuss. It's all just loosey goosey, silly oralloy opinion. One knows this because of how quickly you flee a topic when you realize just how silly your opinions are.

Which, surprisingly, takes you a long time.

1 Reply

The World's Leading Butcher

Quick Links

My Account

able2know