Let Freedom Ring - More Iraqis voted than Americans did!

[Scoobnfl]

I wonder why. :smoking:

because its mooreonic. The sanctions were passed by the Security council of the UN, ya know that world voice of plurality that everyone believes so strongly in.

The real tragedy of the sanctions was that members of the security council chose to violate the sanctions and in doing so reduced the likelihood that they would be successful. This increased the suffering of Iraqis while those countries got BILLION$ in th OFF scandal.

We on the right grow tired of having to point out the obvious to the blind Mooreons of the world.

 

[CptStern]

but how can lesley stahl prove that half a million children have died, he could be lying or over-exagerating ...

"we HEARD" ...ok mr stahl we believe you.

hahahah mr? Leslie Stahl is a woman ..Albright never contested the numbers

 

[CptStern]

because its mooreonic. The sanctions were passed by the Security council of the UN, ya know that world voice of plurality that everyone believes so strongly in.

The real tragedy of the sanctions was that members of the security council chose to violate the sanctions and in doing so reduced the likelihood that they would be successful. This increased the suffering of Iraqis while those countries got BILLION$ in th OFF scandal.

We on the right grow tired of having to point out the obvious to the blind Mooreons of the world.

answer the question

did russia, france or china do this?

 

[KoreBolteR]

hahahah mr? Leslie Stahl is a woman ..Albright never contested the numbers

typo error.

i despise the media. :thumbs:

 

[ComradeBadger]

[Apologies in advance, this isn't directed at anyone specific or anything, I'm just rather irritated]


Annnnnnd people still refuse to aknowledge that something good is coming out of the US intervention in Iraq.

What a huge ****ing suprise.

You know, I'm really really sick of people just bitching endlessly about how they feel the war was wrong.

How helpful of you all, thank you for your wonderful contribution.
The war happened, is there any point saying it was wrong now? No, since like it or not Saddam is removed from power. He was close to getting sanctions removed, and it has been shown that he planned to obtain WMDs once sanctions were gone.

Now, how would you propose to go about removing him from power? Sanctions - failed. UN - failed. Let's face it, the only thing that was going to remove him from power was a war.

Please stop being apologists for a facist regime.

Now, Bush may stand for nearly everything I hate (rich boy gets into power etc) but oh-my-god-wtf-shit I can actually see that some good will come to the Middle East. There was trouble back when Germany and Japan were being rebuilt - look at them now.


When it all comes down to it, I couldn't give two shits about the justification needed to 'sell' the idea to the general populace. What matters to me is that Saddam is removed, and the Iraqi people don't have to fear arbitrary arrest, torture and rape by a secret police.

And now they're having elections, with a high voter turnout.

Now tell me that isn't good.

 

[CptStern]

typo error.

i despise the media. :thumbs:

please, you're just angry you have no way of explaining Albright's actions

 

[Scoobnfl]

answer the question

did russia, france or china do this?

lighten up frances. I missed it cuz I was typing.

No the USA did, it was deemed a target during war and was taken out.

Now your turn. Why, or how can you hold the USA solely responsible for sanctions that were passed by the UN security council?

Why is there no contempt or outrage at countries who violated the sanctions (sold out innocents for $$$$), thus increasing their length and reducing their effectiveness?

Tell us stern.

 

[No Limit]

lighten up frances. I missed it cuz I was typing.

No the USA did, it was deemed a target during war and was taken out.

Now your turn. Why, or how can you hold the USA solely responsible for sanctions that were passed by the UN security council?

Why is there no contempt or outrage at countries who violated the sanctions (sold out innocents for $$$$), thus increasing their length and reducing their effectiveness?

Tell us stern.

It was deemed a target is your response to the US killing a half a million children? Wow, simply, wow...

 

[CptStern]

lighten up frances. I missed it cuz I was typing.

No the USA did, it was deemed a target during war and was taken out.

Now your turn. Why, or how can you hold the USA solely responsible for sanctions that were passed by the UN security council?

Why is there no contempt or outrage at countries who violated the sanctions (sold out innocents for $$$$), thus increasing their length and reducing their effectiveness?

Tell us stern.

it wasnt the sanctions that killed all those iraqi children, it was the lack of hygienic conditions that lead to those deaths ..diliberately targeting civilian infrastructures is a war crime ..they just used the ambigious "dual-use" justification to weasel their way out of it


btw the document was made BEFORE the war, and it's objectives are very very clear




from the document ..it's all in captials so I'm not going to bother to correct it

JAN 91

POORER IRAQIS AND INDUSTRIES REQUIRING LARGE OUANTITIES OF PURE
WATER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.

UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UNSANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)



WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL
CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO
IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.
3. 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 AND TO
CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED,
INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING,
ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.
4. IRAQ'S OVERALL WATER TREATMENT CAPABILITY WILL SUFFER A
SLOW DECLINE, RATHER THAN A PRECIPITOUS HALT, AS DWINDLING
SUPPLIES AND CANNIBALIZED PARTS ARE CONCENTRATED AT HIGHER
PRIORITY LOCATIONS. ALTHOUGH IRAQ IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING A LOSS
OF WATERTREATMENT CAPABILITY, IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS (TO JUNE 1991) BEFORE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY DEGRADED.


IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE UNLESS THE POPULATION
WERE CAREFUL TO BOIL WATER BEFORE CONSUMPTION, PARTICULARLY
SINCE THE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM, NEVER A HIGH PRIORITY, WILL
SUFFER THE SAME LOSS OF CAPABILITY WITH THE LACK OF CHLORINE.
LOCALLY PRODUCED FOOD AND MEDICINE COULD BE CONTAMINATED. LACK
OF COAGULATION CHEMICALS WILL CAUSE PERIODIC SHUTDOWNS OF
TREATMENT PLANTS FOR UNCLOGGING AND CLEANING FILTERS, CAUSING
INTERRUPTIONS OF WATER SUPPLIES.


CONSEOUENTLY,
IRAQ PROBABLY IS USING UNTREATED OR PARTIALLY TREATED WATER IN
SOME LOCATIONS. FULL DEGRADATION OF THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM



PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Stern, what are you so adament about today?

Should'nt you be happier?

 

[KoreBolteR]

i wish i could back up myself , but the media are so biast towards the terrorists.so i cant, anyway, getting some words off sites might not count as "actual fact" , just "lies"

 

[Absinthe]

How helpful of you all, thank you for your wonderful contribution.
The war happened, is there any point saying it was wrong now?

I see. I guess it's best to say "shit happens", sweep the mess under the rug, absolve people of responsibility, and let people develop the notion that everything went as smooth as possible.

Now, how would you propose to go about removing him from power? Sanctions - failed. UN - failed. Let's face it, the only thing that was going to remove him from power was a war.

I'd propose removing him from power at a different time and in a far more refined method that actually has a degree of foresight.

Now, Bush may stand for nearly everything I hate (rich boy gets into power etc) but oh-my-god-wtf-shit I can actually see that some good will come to the Middle East. There was trouble back when Germany and Japan were being rebuilt - look at them now.

The Middle East is a far different bag of beans. And yeah, I do recall Germany having trouble when it came to rebuilding. Didn't they then turn to Nazism?

When it all comes down to it, I couldn't give two shits about the justification needed to 'sell' the idea to the general populace. What matters to me is that Saddam is removed, and the Iraqi people don't have to fear arbitrary arrest, torture and rape by a secret police.

Au contraire, there is plenty of that happening in Iraq by the hands of US troops (sans the rape, but even then I don't know for sure).

And now they're having elections, with a high voter turnout.

Now tell me that isn't good.

Not when it's a charade.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000192.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1402530,00.html

I also firmly believe that the US will intervene should it dislike an elected candidate. I also believe that the elections aren't going to make or break the country. Iraq is not out of the woods yet, and things could easily go worse from here. You call that pessimism. I call that a reasonable expectation.

You accuse people of bitching about Iraq for the sake of bitching about Iraq, and seem to imply that we have a partisan agenda that opposes Bush in every way. I could just as easily accuse you of not actually caring about the Iraqi people, but only the elections, thus giving your "side" a +1 score over us.

But that's not the case, is it?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I see. I guess it's best to say "shit happens", sweep the mess under the rug, absolve people of responsibility, and let people develop the notion that everything went as smooth as possible.

You just relived your own example -- sweep his arguement under the rug, and retort with whatever comes to your mind. His point was entirely different -- reread the article; except, dont get mad.

I'd propose removing him from power at a different time and in a far more refined method that actually has a degree of foresight.

Sanctions - Failed. UN - Failed. Whats this foresight?

The Middle East is a far different bag of beans. And yeah, I do recall Germany having trouble when it came to rebuilding. Didn't they then turn to Nazism?

Ah, so now your intentionally twisting his words. Cute -- but no.

He was talking about post-World War II. You do know what "Post" means right?

You accuse people of bitching about Iraq for the sake of bitching about Iraq, and seem to imply that we have a partisan agenda that opposes Bush in every way. I could just as easily accuse you of not actually caring about the Iraqi people, but only the elections, thus giving your "side" a +1 score over us.

Thats hardly the point -- way to make up political spin; as opposed to, finding something and just spinning.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I see. I guess it's best to say "shit happens", sweep the mess under the rug, absolve people of responsibility, and let people develop the notion that everything went as smooth as possible.

No. In my opinion, the war was justified, in your opinion it wasn't. It's pointless arguing the same ground over and over.

I'd propose removing him from power at a different time and in a far more refined method that actually has a degree of foresight.

This would be?

The Middle East is a far different bag of beans. And yeah, I do recall Germany having trouble when it came to rebuilding. Didn't they then turn to Nazism?

Yes, I agree that the Middle East is very different, and it is hard to compare to a European nation, what with internal divisions. Oh, and I was referencing to the rebuilding of Germany after World War 2 - the first time, the League Of Nations ****ed up bigstyle.

The situation should be treated with slightly more care, but that doesn't invalidate the entire operation.

Au contraire, there is plenty of that happening in Iraq by the hands of US troops (sans the rape, but even then I don't know for sure).

Yes, but the troops are brought to justice. I personally think the conduct of some US Troops has been sickening. I agree that this is a problem.

Not when it's a charade.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000192.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1402530,00.html

Interesting articles. The first one could merely be an incentive to drive people to vote, but again, time shall tell.

The Guardian article I agree with, but I fail to see how it shows it's a charade... proper government doesn't come from someone waving a wand and saying on TV that it is so...

I also firmly believe that the US will intervene should it dislike an elected candidate. I also believe that the elections aren't going to make or break the country. Iraq is not out of the woods yet, and things could easily go worse from here. You call that pessimism. I call that a reasonable expectation.

Again, you are correct, Iraq is not out of the woods yet, did I say it was? In my opinion this is the start of something new. It may take a while, but we are surely on the road.

You accuse people of bitching about Iraq for the sake of bitching about Iraq, and seem to imply that we have a partisan agenda that opposes Bush in every way. I could just as easily accuse you of not actually caring about the Iraqi people, but only the elections, thus giving your "side" a +1 score over us.

A lot of people do bitch about it for the sake of it. And a lot of people let their dislike of Bush lead to a desire to see his projects fail. That is not entirely the point, however, and I shouldn't have brought that in.

And I happen to be on neither side

 

[Scoobnfl]

it wasnt the sanctions that killed all those iraqi children

Originally Posted by CptStern
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.



ya got me there :rolling:

so which is it? sanctions or poor water?

ya gripe about the sanctions in one post, then when confronted with the obvious evidence of the UN being behind the sanctions and those members that defied the sanctions worsening the situation you change it to ??????

what's it going to be next?

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes ...my involvement goes back before 1991

Stern was at the front lines protesting any movement to remove Saddam from power back in the day. Furthermore, he protested Kuwait's ability to exist as a free nation. What a generous kinda guy. I can feel the love.

 

[seinfeldrules]

did russia, france or china do this?

Did they squander away 12 billion in aid money? Nah, that was saddam.

 

[Top Secret]

Don't mind Stern. He's just pissed that this whole voting thing seems to be working.

 

[CptStern]

Did they squander away 12 billion in aid money? Nah, that was saddam.

so you're man enough to answer the question or should we continue to play "avoid the issue like a plague"? any of you?

Top Secret maybe you'd like a stab at it? Sgt Shellback? Bodacious? Scoopnfl? ghost? anybody?



I'm getting used to the stone dead silence

 

[Top Secret]

so you're man enough to answer the question or should we continue to play "avoid the issue like a plague"? any of you?

Top Secret maybe you'd like a stab at it? Sgt Shellback? Bodacious? Scoopnfl? ghost? anybody?



I'm getting used to the stone dead silence

Are you going to answer his question Stern? Or fight fire with fire all day long?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

so you're man enough to answer the question or should we continue to play "avoid the issue like a plague"? any of you?

Top Secret maybe you'd like a stab at it? Sgt Shellback? Bodacious? Scoopnfl? ghost? anybody?



I'm getting used to the stone dead silence

If you would stop tuning out what you don't want to hear it wouldn't be so quiet...

You Liberals were as right about the Iraqi election as you were about Kerry....

 

[seinfeldrules]

so you're man enough to answer the question or should we continue to play "avoid the issue like a plague"?

I have answered the question over and over.

 

[CptStern]

here's the document, answer away

 

[CptStern]

Are you going to answer his question Stern? Or fight fire with fire all day long?

I asked first ..anyways ..bring it on, I'll take on you knuckle draggers all at once

so come on top secret give it a shot

 

[Top Secret]

I asked first ..anyways ..bring it on, I'll take on you knuckle draggers all at once

so come on top secret give it a shot

I could pop your ego with a sponge right now.

 

[seinfeldrules]

here's the document, answer away

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950825/950825_84205717.html

 

[CptStern]

that answers nothing ...why did your country purposefully bomb water treatment plants?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations…. As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own [page 275].

Contrary to what she writes, food was initially embargoed, along with everything else but medicine in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Although the embargo on food ended in April 1991,

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

 

[burner69]

So no one else here finds it a tad odd, as I do, that:

* Iraq blatently posed no threat to the West, and yet we stormed in during a war on terrorism, intended, I was told, to protect us from terrorism.

* We pulled out the vast majority of our troops from Afghanistan allowing many known members of the Taliban to escape, and perhaps, even OBL. As from 2004 there were only 10'000 troops in Afghanistan, the majority either in Kabul (the only place actually held by the coalition) or guarding the oil pipelines. Meanwhile, the country turns to sh*t, becoming the second worst nation to live in in the world.

* We are told lies, given exagerated 'facts', and scare tactics used on us about WMDs. And yet when it arises it was all bullcrap, nothing happens - to anybody.

* We b*tch and moan about WMDs, but we continue to go around selling them to unstable, militarised countries that don't meet UN human rights standards. War on terrorism? What's the point of invading one country when you're arming another 20 elsewhere?

* The idea that we are being told "You're either with us, or with the terrorists". Making a complex situation totally black and white.

* The hypocrasy of storming into a country under the banner of freedom, then taking people away, torturing, beating, humiliating, and sometimes killing them. Imposing sanctions on the country that force them to purchase essential items from the US. Large corporations muscling in on deals in Iraq, Microsoft and McDonalds to name two of the larger ones.

* I'll say it again going into a bullsh*t war
War on terrorism #1: Entering a country where known terror chief OBL was believed to have hidden, overthrowing the nasty government as they went. (See the large terror aspect, the idea of making the world a safer place by hunting down the guilty party behind 9/11)
War on terrorism #2: LYING to link Saddam with terrorism. LYING about the country's WMD capabilities. LYING about the country's desire to use them on the west. Basically, disguising a war designed to overthrow a troublesome dictator, at a very unstable time, as a war that was necessary to protect the west - guaranteeing backing from back home.

Does noone on the right find it all VERY disturbing?

As for elections; remember the Bush Gore elections? Remember who got the most votes? If you can't manage democracy in your own country, what makes you think it'll happen elsewhere?

 

[seinfeldrules]

that answers nothing ...why did your country purposefully bomb water treatment plants?

It was war stern, not some computer game. They could have easily rebuilt what we destroyed, but instead they spent money on rebuilding a failed army and buying gold plated toilet seats.

 

[burner69]

It was war stern, not some computer game. They could have easily rebuilt what we destroyed, but instead they spent money on rebuilding a failed army and buying gold plated toilet seats.

So if Saddam launched a long distance cruise missile (from his abundant collection of WMDs) at the US, striking several water treatment plants and destroying them. Anyone who dies would have actually have been killed by the US, because they didn't fiz the problem.

No.

Look who bombed it....just... there.... right there! There's the blame! Right there!

Or shall I get the broom out for you again?

 

[seinfeldrules]

So if Saddam launched a long distance cruise missile (from his abundant collection of WMDs) at the US, striking several water treatment plants and destroying them. Anyone who dies would have actually have been killed by the US, because they didn't fiz the problem.

We would have rebuilt them because we care about our people. We would not have spent the money on gold plated toilet seats.

 

[CptStern]

It was war stern, not some computer game. They could have easily rebuilt what we destroyed, but instead they spent money on rebuilding a failed army and buying gold plated toilet seats.

ummm no



The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country.... Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers.

Nov 2001, Harpers

 

[Scoobnfl]

so you're man enough to answer the question or should we continue to play "avoid the issue like a plague"? any of you?

Top Secret maybe you'd like a stab at it? Sgt Shellback? Bodacious? Scoopnfl? ghost? anybody?



I'm getting used to the stone dead silence

answer my question.

unless you want to throw up the white flag since you've contradicted yourself...... completely

So if Saddam launched a long distance cruise missile (from his abundant collection of WMDs) at the US, striking several water treatment plants and destroying them. Anyone who dies would have actually have been killed by the US, because they didn't fiz the problem.

No.

Look who bombed it....just... there.... right there! There's the blame! Right there!

Or shall I get the broom out for you again?

so you're jumping from page to page with stern...... awwwwe how cute.

1st it was the sanctions that killed the kids, but since the UN put the sanctions in place 14 years ago thats ringing kind of hollow so you switch to the bombed out water plant that was destroyed in the war being the reason..... ya'll are lame

 

[CptStern]

you've yet to answer mine, we'll talk about my answer once you provide yours

 

[Scoobnfl]

answer the question

did russia, france or china do this?

lighten up frances. I missed it cuz I was typing.

No the USA did, it was deemed a target during war and was taken out.

Now your turn. Why, or how can you hold the USA solely responsible for sanctions that were passed by the UN security council?

Why is there no contempt or outrage at countries who violated the sanctions (sold out innocents for $$$$), thus increasing their length and reducing their effectiveness?

Tell us stern.

it was answered a couple of pages back, not that you'd notice anything that points out the fact that you blatantly contradicted yourself.

now which is it, the UN sponsored sanctions or the bombed out water plant that allegedly killed 1/2 million kids?


tick tock

 

[CptStern]

it was answered a couple of pages back, not that you'd notice anything that points out the fact that you blatantly contradicted yourself.

now which is it, the UN sponsored sanctions or the bombed out water plant that allegedly killed 1/2 million kids?


tick tock

I gave you the document, it's quite clear who targeted the water treatment plants ..the US deliberately withheld key components needed to reconstruct the de-salination plants ...did you bother to read the water assessment document? here let me refresh you



sorry about the capitals but dem's da breaks

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES - Jan 1991

IRAO DEPENDS ON IMPORTING-SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT-AND
SOME CHEMICALS TO PURIFY ITS WATER SUPPLY, MOST OF WHICH IS
HEAVILY MINERALIZED AND FREQUENTLY BRACKISH TO SALINE.
2. WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL
CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO
IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.
3. 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 AND TO
CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED,
INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING,
ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.


in other words taking out the water treatment plants early in the war would lead to a complete breakdown of the system that would then force saddam to try to break sanctions so that the US could justify an invasion ....pretty clever if you ask me

POORER IRAQIS AND INDUSTRIES REQUIRING LARGE OUANTITIES OF PURE
WATER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.

UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UNSANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)



4. IRAQ'S OVERALL WATER TREATMENT CAPABILITY WILL SUFFER A
SLOW DECLINE, RATHER THAN A PRECIPITOUS HALT, AS DWINDLING
SUPPLIES AND CANNIBALIZED PARTS ARE CONCENTRATED AT HIGHER
PRIORITY LOCATIONS. ALTHOUGH IRAQ IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING A LOSS
OF WATERTREATMENT CAPABILITY, IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS (TO JUNE 1991) BEFORE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY DEGRADED.


IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE UNLESS THE POPULATION
WERE CAREFUL TO BOIL WATER BEFORE CONSUMPTION, PARTICULARLY
SINCE THE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM, NEVER A HIGH PRIORITY, WILL
SUFFER THE SAME LOSS OF CAPABILITY WITH THE LACK OF CHLORINE.
LOCALLY PRODUCED FOOD AND MEDICINE COULD BE CONTAMINATED. LACK
OF COAGULATION CHEMICALS WILL CAUSE PERIODIC SHUTDOWNS OF
TREATMENT PLANTS FOR UNCLOGGING AND CLEANING FILTERS, CAUSING
INTERRUPTIONS OF WATER SUPPLIES.


CONSEOUENTLY,
IRAQ PROBABLY IS USING UNTREATED OR PARTIALLY TREATED WATER IN
SOME LOCATIONS. FULL DEGRADATION OF THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS.

 

[Scoobnfl]

in other words taking out the water treatment plants early in the war would lead to complete breakdown of system that would then force saddam to try to break sanctions so that the US could justify an invsion ....pretty clever if you ask me

brilliant we set the stage for re invasion 12 years down the road, before gulf war 1 had begun.

did we do this knowing that listening to world opinion would prevent us from taking sadam out the 1st go round?


you still haven't answered my question....... you really need to work on your sidestep technique. maybe knee or hip replacement, good thing you live in Canaduh they should hook you up right quick with that.

 

[CptStern]

brilliant we set the stage for re invasion 12 years down the road, before gulf war 1 had begun.

did we do this knowing that listening to world opinion would prevent us from taking sadam out the 1st go round?


you still haven't answered my question....... you really need to work on your sidestep technique. maybe knee or hip replacement, good thing you live in Canaduh they should hook you up right quick with that.

nice sidesteping there, scoop :dozey:

I answered it with the above post

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Let the google wars commence....!

Nerd against Nerd...

No opinions needed

Just be the Nerd who can Google up the most references in the shortests amount of time...

Have no original thoughts of your own?

Why... You too can be a politcal debater on HL2[/b]

Never been out of Saskatchawan beyond Mid summer besides when you went to Aunt Flo's that one night?

Than you too can be a Political debater on HL2

Fine print: Must have no concious thought of your own. Must never have experienced any real significant event in history in person. Must never have done anything to stop what yu will have to complain about. Must never have interacted with a real human being. Girlfriends excluded if they are your family pet.

Stern's kewl here.... The rest of you have been disqualified.