top 10 "evil" Nations?

[burner69]

And as your own source states, this was done by the UN not the US. Do you have trouble with the differences between letters 'N' and 'S'?

Myth: "Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq." (U.S. State Department, March 2000)

Fact: Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents prove, in the words of one author, "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." (The Progressive, August 2001)

Source

IRAQ COULD TRY CONVINCING THE UNITED NATIONS OR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES TO EXEMPT WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES FROM SANCTIONS
FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS. IT PROBABLY ALSO IS ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE SUPPLIES BY USING SOME SYMPATHETIC COUNTRIES AS FRONTS.
IF SUCH ATTEMPTS FAIL, IRAQI ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR THEIR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

Taken from the report that Stern showed us earlier. It seems to me that the UN sanctions prevented Saddam from getting hold of the chemicals to reestablish a clean water supply. America, not the UN, bombed the water supplies knowing this. (It's all in the report).

It is certainly true that some of those harmful effects have been removed gradually since 1999 - in removing the cap on Iraq's oil exports, in allowing more spare parts for the oil infrastructure, and in streamlining the import arrangements. These measures were accepted by the US. However, many of the core economic problems remained, in particular in keeping Iraq's oil sector - its only source of income - in a state of perpetual disrepair. Iraq has not been allowed to receive external investment in its oil infrastructure, thus keeping its production levels low. As a result, the country has remained much poorer than it need have been. Also, Iraq has only been able to use the funds it has earned through oil sales to import goods, rather than pay public sector wages; and 25% of income is still paid in reparations for the invasion of Kuwait.

It is these aspects of sanctions that have been maintained by the US in the Security Council. At various times, the other members of the Security Council have proposed lifting parts of the sanctions regime, but the US has signalled that it would not approve. Russia, for example, had been proposing since 1994 a lifting of the oil embargo - such that Iraq's earnings on oil exports would revert to the Iraqi government - in return for compliance with weapons inspections, but the US has refused to consider this. Similarly, France proposed in 2001 to allow civil investment in Iraq, under the scrutiny of the Security Council - but again the US blocked this; an account is at:

http://www.casi.org.uk/weekofaction/nine.html

Source

 

[seinfeldrules]

A formerly classified US document, 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' provides evidence that ill health was knowingly induced in the population of Iraq through the ruination of that country's water purification system.

Stern it was war. Its not like we woke up and decided to randomly bomb the shit out of some neighborhood. Ask yourself this: Would this document had existed if Saddam had not illegally invaded Kuwait?

When the sanctions were applied, Saddam should have been able to rebuild what was destroyed in wartime. How so you ask? There were sanctions! Well first off, what if Saddam had *gasp* met his agreements so the sanctions could be lifted ? Even still, the sanctions left him the basic necessities to live and cure disease. As in: "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs." Instead of pursuing those humanitarian options, Saddam opted to rebuild his army, and create gold toilet seats to crap on! What a great guy, I sure wish I had protested for him to remain in power!

Man 15 minutes after this post, maybe I should quote myself too! All the 'cool' kids are doing it!

 

[GhostFox]

Burner, read the whole report. The bombings were authorized by the UN. That makes the bombings a UN action. The UN was in effect 'borrowing' US millitary forces to bomb the facilities.

Can't you see that you can't even admit it was a UN action? Maybe you should ask yourself why you find is nessicary to falsely demonize the US and falsely praise the UN to support your political beliefs.

Once everyone agrees to acknowladge that it was a UN action and the US had nothing to do with it, outside of being part of the UN, then I will consider arguing the document and where the fault should fall, either on the UN or Saddam.

 

[GhostFox]

Myth: "Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq." (U.S. State Department, March 2000)

Fact: Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents prove, in the words of one author, "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." (The Progressive, August 2001)

I'll give you any amount of money you like if you can prove to me the US sanction that supposedly did this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It seems to me that the UN sanctions prevented Saddam from getting hold of the chemicals to reestablish a clean water supply

Why would the evil US/UN prevent Saddam from obtaining chemicals we ask? Maybe you should ask one of the Kurdish families (if you can find one still alive) from Halabja what they think of the idea of Saddam with chemicals.

 

[CptStern]

I'll give you any amount of money you like if you can prove to me the US sanction that supposedly did this.

"Tony Hall, Democratic Representative from Ohio, who visited Iraq in the summer of 2000 as the first member of the US Congress to visit Iraq since 1991, wrote on his return: The prime killer of children under five years of age - diarrhoeal diseases -has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990... Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the US government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment... I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."

source



your life savings will do

 

[burner69]

Just to emphasise, from the report:

The government of the United States, possessed of this scientific knowledge and having access, since 1991, to a study clearly linking the forced decline of Iraq's water purification system to increaded ill health and death from water-bourne disease in the population, nonertheless proceded to carry out, and to maintain for over a decade, the ruination of this water purification system.

 

[burner69]

Why would the evil US/UN prevent Saddam from obtaining chemicals we ask? Maybe you should ask one of the Kurdish families (if you can find one still alive) from Halabja what they think of the idea of Saddam with chemicals.

Why don't you ask the people who's children died from disease in the water system, why the chemicals were not available to clean the water.

Saddam was evil, yes. That gives you no right to impose a situation on the country where they need to get hold of chemicals, of which many can be used as weapons. Seems a bit irresposible to me, making someone who should not have access to chemical weapons NEED the chemicals, giving him justification to request them... and tempting him to break the UN sanctions.

Perhaps a good way to go to war? Give a country sanctions then make them need to break them. You broke sanctions - we're comin' t'getcha!! That's just speculation, it is a big 'perhaps'.

 

[CptStern]

HEALTH AND WELFARE IN IRAQ AFTER THE GULF CRISIS AN IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT

WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS SURVEY

Between 24 August and 3 September, the Water Study Team conducted a survey of the water and wastewater systems in Iraq to assess the current status of these systems and the degree to which they have been affected by the Gulf Crisis. The survey consisted of unannounced and unescorted inspections of water and wastewater treatment plants, distribution systems, and collection systems in all regions of Iraq. During site visits, team members interviewed responsible personnel and inspected and photographed all major elements of the site.


This report analyzes data collected during this survey. The findings are: (1) the water treatment plants are operating at 30–70% design capacity primarily due to a lack of spare parts, (2) chlorine is being rationed at all plants with supplies on hand varying from a few days to four weeks, (3) operational capacity of watersystems will deteriorate to 5–10% of capacity within months due to lack of parts, chlorine, and regular power supply, and (4) wastewater systems in Baghdad and in the governorates south of Baghdad are operating at 0–70% capacity, (i.e. some plant were not operating at all) with lack of spare parts and
electricity as the main rate-limiting factors. Team members visited 13 cities inspected 28 facilities, including 18 water treatment plants (WTP), eight wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), one water supply facility (WSF), and one alum (aluminum sulfate)
plant. They found that much of Iraq’s water and wastewater systems are currently inoperable or ineffective. Water treatment plants currently function at a fraction of their former capacities, with only one of the 18 plants visited operating at 100% capacity. Many wastewater treatment plants have ceased operation altogether. Water distribution suffers from reduced flows and limited chlorine. The sewerage collection systems are partially operational due to the array of problems caused by the shut-down of lift stations during the war. These problems are likely to reoccur as lift stations are again shut down for a lack of spare parts.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seems a bit irresposible to me, making someone who should not have access to chemical weapons NEED the chemicals, giving him justification to request them... and tempting him to break the UN sanctions.

Hell they needed the chemicals in the first place. The treatment plants didnt just break and then all of a sudden need more chemicals to run again, treatment plants need the chemicals to run in the first place. Its like giving a serial killer a knife in the middle of NYC because he needs to cut his steak to survive.

All Saddam had to do was meet his agreements, then sanctions = over. Not that hard of a concept.

 

[CptStern]

Hell they needed the chemicals in the first place. The treatment plants didnt just break and then all of a sudden need more chemicals to run again, treatment plants need the chemicals to run in the first place. Its like giving a serial killer a knife in the middle of NYC because he needs to cut his steak to survive.

"The findings are: (1) the water treatment plants are operating at 30–70% design capacity primarily due to a lack of spare parts, (2) chlorine is being rationed at all plants with supplies on hand varying from a few days to four weeks, (3) operational capacity of watersystems will deteriorate to 5–10% of capacity within months due to lack of parts, chlorine, and regular power supply, and (4) wastewater systems in Baghdad and in the governorates south of Baghdad are operating at 0–70% capacity, (i.e. some plant were not operating at all) with lack of spare parts and electricity as the main rate-limiting factors"


Tony Hall, Democratic Representative from Ohio:

The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment... I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."

 

[seinfeldrules]

All Saddam had to do was meet his agreements, then sanctions = over. Not that hard of a concept.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And then ask yourself this question, how many WMDs did the US find in Iraq?

 

[CptStern]

Hell they needed the chemicals in the first place. The treatment plants didnt just break.....

The treatment plants didnt just break

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

FM: DIA WASHINGTON DC

TO: CENTCOM


DISA Central Command (CENTCOM) Field Office

Functions:

Provides the warfighters in theater with seamless, end-to-end, integrated information services that are flexible, interoperable, reliable, affordable and sustainable.

 

[Teh_Poet]

Definately North Korea.

:sniper: :monkee:

 

[Teh_Poet]

And then ask yourself this question, how many WMDs did the US find in Iraq?

They found plent of them. And killed most of them.

 

[Zorrander001]

The US may have more than a few questionable acts tucked under it's belt, but not so many that it should be set apart and singled out from any other country, and the US certainly isn't evil. The US has done more good in the world than any other country in the history of planet Earth. It is regrettable that sometimes innocents get trampled in the process, but when giants like the US conduct operations in the wider world this is many times unavoidable.

Iraq is a good example. Obviously we have done good in creating a democracy where there once was only a brutal and torturous dictator. It's true that much innocent blood was spilled, but in war this is unavoidable and cannot be helped, it can only be minimized. This fact, while tragic, doesn't negate the ultimately positive outcome of our efforts there.

Some people here really lack the perspective to weigh such issues, as is evident by the results of the poll. I feel truly sorry for any human being that feels the US is more "evil" than any one of those other countries.

 

[GhostFox]

Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the US government

You mean the contracts that were halted in response to UN sanctions? Nice try. What else you got?

 

[burner69]

All Saddam had to do was meet his agreements, then sanctions = over. Not that hard of a concept.

And the need to bomb the water plants were....?

And then ask yourself this question, how many WMDs did the US find in Iraq?

Not many by the sounds of things. But yes, as teh_poet mentions, you did kill or capture some evil folk. Just ashame the action of invasion drew many many more people, now more fired up to use aggressive force, into Iraq to attack our troops.

Shall we say, in this terrorists are WMDs poetic kinda way, we got a few weapons, but primed several thousand more.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And the need to bomb the water plants were....?

It was a war, not a game.

Not many by the sounds of things. But yes, as teh_poet mentions, you did kill or capture some evil folk. Just ashame the action of invasion drew many many more people, now more fired up to use aggressive force, into Iraq to attack our troops.

Shall we say, in this terrorists are WMDs poetic kinda way, we got a few weapons, but primed several thousand more.

The point is we found barely any, meaning the sanctions worked.

 

[KoreBolteR]

wmd in iraq was passed over to syria, they must have been :/

Here

and here

 

[kirovman]

wmd in iraq was passed over to syria, they must have been :/

Here

and here

That was speculated back then (2003-2004), but remember this, in more recent news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

 

[Zeus]

I don't refer to Bush as someone intelligent, but I would say

1. North Korea
2. USA

 

[burner69]

It was a war, not a game.

The point is we found barely any, meaning the sanctions worked.

Woah woah woah. Half a million people died, it certainly is not a game. 2 Questions; a) So what if it was a war, it does not legalise the actions - it is clearlt breaking the geneva convention, along with most moral codes of coduct. b) The war didn't go on for over a decade, which is how long the destruction of the water supplies went on for.

We found no WMDs.
We got Saddams regime (amazingly I am happy about that) but have unfortunatley now flooded the region with people fighting against the invading western army. Call them what you will, you've made a new, larger enemy for yourself.

 

[CptStern]

You mean the contracts that were halted in response to UN sanctions? Nice try. What else you got?

stop trying to change what it says:


Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the US government

 

[RZAL]

Why were the sanitations imposed in the first place?

Lets see, wheres that long list?

 

[CptStern]

you mean sanctions right? why did you bomb civilian infrastructures contrary to the geneva accords

 

[RZAL]

you mean sanctions right? why did you bomb civilian infrastructures contrary to the geneva accords

oops thanks...Why were the sanctions imposed in the first place?

Lets see, wheres that long list?

I don't think the geneva accords are any where in the US Constitution.

My Answer: Because we can, because the law allows us to.

 

[CptStern]

then why did you sign them?

 

[burner69]

My Answer: Because we can, because the law allows us to.

Firstly, just because you can do something, dosen't mean you should. That could be seen in many people's eyes as being 'evil'.

Secondly, the law does not allow you to:

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."

Source

 

[GhostFox]

stop trying to change what it says

I am not. I am asking you to figure why the holds were placed. If you read more then the first article you can find containing something in it that supports your view, you'd probably understand.

 

[GhostFox]

why did you bomb civilian infrastructures contrary to the geneva accords

The UN bombed them. We already established that. Did you suffer amnesia?

 

[seinfeldrules]

a) So what if it was a war, it does not legalise the actions - it is clearlt breaking the geneva convention, along with most moral codes of coduct.

b) The war didn't go on for over a decade, which is how long the destruction of the water supplies went on for.

A.) It was an attempt to push the Iraqi people into toppling Saddam after he continually refused to become a respected member of the international community.

B.) Show me a source where we bombed them after the Gulf War ended.

This is just a furthered attempt to throw off the good the US has done. You somehow focus on the 'evil' of the US, but I have yet to hear mention of the Anfal campaign by anybody, except myself. Care to explain to me what that is? How about Halabja? We toppled one of the most horrific regimes in history. We made it possible for Iraqis to hold free elections. Nothing you guys say can take that away, no matter how hard you try.

 

[CptStern]

The UN bombed them. We already established that. Did you suffer amnesia?

reading comprehnsion:

who bombed iraqi infrastructures?

IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES

FM: DIA WASHINGTON DC

TO: CENTCOM


DISA Central Command (CENTCOM) Field Office

Functions:

Provides the warfighters in theater with seamless, end-to-end, integrated information services that are flexible, interoperable, reliable, affordable and sustainable.

forget the life savings, I want a pound of flesh

 

[CptStern]

A.) It was an attempt to push the Iraqi people into toppling Saddam after he continually refused to become a respected member of the international community.

by killing 500,000 iraqi children?

This is just a furthered attempt to throw off the good the US has done.

no this is an attempt of cutting throw the thick web of propaganda and finding the truth

You somehow focus on the 'evil' of the US

because it's what happened ..do you expect us to whitewash the truth?

but I have yet to hear mention of the Anfal campaign by anybody, except myself. Care to explain to me what that is? How about Halabja?

We toppled one of the most horrific regimes in history.

which YOU made and supported

We made it possible for Iraqis to hold free elections.

too bad so many innocent civilians had to pay the ultimate price

Nothing you guys say can take that away, no matter how hard you try.

hypocrite ..500,000 CHILDREN

 

[GhostFox]

forget the life savings, I want a pound of flesh

Again Stern, according to your OWN report, the bombings were UN sanctioned. That means that the UN actually bombed them, and the country that supplied the manpower is immaterial. You should pay me for explaining simple things to you. I feel like a kindergarten teacher.

 

[CptStern]

Again Stern, according to your OWN report, the bombings were UN sanctioned. That means that the UN actually bombed them, and the country that supplied the manpower is immaterial.

show me where it says "UN"





btw, where's my pound of flesh?

 

[RZAL]

Firstly, just because you can do something, dosen't mean you should. That could be seen in many people's eyes as being 'evil'.

Secondly, the law does not allow you to:

Source

Look at the partial list below, this is why we are in Iraq. Its not a question of if we can do something but a question of should we do something. War is hell, no doubt about and in this case America chose the lesser of two evils. Saddam should have been taken out of power years ago, think about how many people died at his hands. Who brought this fate to Iraq? It was not America, Saddam choose his own path.

Hemingway once said, “The world is good and some things are worth fighting for”. I don’t believe the first part, but I do believe that some things are worth fighting for.


Here is a partial list

1979 Ahmad Hasan Bakr was replaced by Saddam Hussein as President Bakr's health was cited as the reason for his stepping down and he was placed under house arrest?

1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran?

1981 Israeli jets destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor?

1984 The 40-month old war between Iran and Iraq escalated when Iran launched a major offensive; 500,000 troops engaged in battle?

1987 An Iraqi jet fired rockets at the U.S.S. Stark, killing 37 American sailors. Iraq later apologized for what it called a tragic mistake?

1988 Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to a cease fire with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. After eight years of war, the two sides entered negotiations to end a conflict that had cost the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis and about one million Iranians?

1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. UN Security Council Resolution 660 condemned the invasion and called for full withdrawal, but Saddam Hussein ignores this?

1991 A coalition of forces led by the United States launched an attack on Iraq in order to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and prevent it from launching similar wars of aggression again in the future?

1993 The United States, France, and Britain launched several air and cruise-missile strikes against Iraq in response to provocations, including Iraqi assassination attempt against former President George H. W. Bush?

1994 Iraqi troop buildup near Kuwait in 1994 led the United States to send forces to Kuwait and nearby areas. Continued resistance to weapons inspections led to bombing raids against Iraq, and trade sanctions imposed on Iraq remained in place, albeit with an emphasis on military-related goods until the second Gulf conflict?

1995 Two of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamil and Saddam Kamil defected to Jordan with Saddam's daughters. Hussein had been in charge of Iraqi development of Weapons of Mass Destruction and brings along with him extensive evidence of development of banned weapons?

1996 Repeatedly shunned and rejected by international Iraqi opposition groups, defectors Hussein and Saddam Kamil were enticed to return to Iraq - where they are quickly executed?

2002 During his State of the Union speech, President George Bush lists Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria as part of an "axis of evil." According to Bush, "by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger?"

2003 The international community asked Saddam Hussein to step down from power and enter exile?

2003 Saddam Hussein refuses to step down, American and British ground forces invade Iraq via Kuwait in the second Gulf War, this time with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and his Baathist government once and for all?


Who brought this fate to Iraq!!!! Oh Oh I know Saddam Saddam Saddam, can you say Saddam? http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm or
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html#1992

then why did you sign them?

Can the United States not change its mine? Correct me if I’m wrong…Hell yea it can. America is a sovereign nation, it doesn’t need to seek the permission of other governments to conduct its business. Get over it……..

Again Stern, according to your OWN report, the bombings were UN sanctioned. That means that the UN actually bombed them, and the country that supplied the manpower is immaterial. You should pay me for explaining simple things to you. I feel like a kindergarten teacher.

 

[seinfeldrules]

by killing 500,000 iraqi children?

What would you do if your Gov't couldnt repair facilities broken in a war it started? Most likely overthrow it.

no this is an attempt of cutting throw the thick web of propaganda and finding the truth

Wrong, your sole intention is portraying the US as some sort of devil. It has always been your stance on any issue.

which YOU made and supported

We didnt make anything, we are the only ones who are willing to take action in the world. Again, if you were in charge...
1. Saddam would still be in power.
2. Saddam would still be in Kuwait.
3. Saddam would have a massive army poised to create havoc in the Middle East.

too bad so many innocent civilians had to pay the ultimate price

It is too bad, but it is war stern, innocents always die in war.

hypocrite ..500,000 CHILDREN

Me hypocrite? YOU are the one who thinks the US is more evil than Saddam! I'd rather be a hypocrite than delusional.

 

[bliink]

From the original poster:

it's more tongue in cheek than serious ...so please no flames, just write down your choice and why you chose it and move on

Oh.. so I come in here, everyone's at each others throats... again.
Crazy tangents everywhere...

In general, its devolved into "Political sludge" as I call it- One of the key chemicals in the "Politics" section- Its highly volatile, burns easy, and gets stuck in the carpet, yet its still so viscous that it can splat all over everything, leaving a greasy film. Its also a powerful acid.