| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Khubla" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2006 03:41:03 AM |
| Object: |
Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK - God
forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the war in Vietnam.
But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the liberation of Iraq is now
costing more each month than the preservation of the Republic of South
Vietnam did more than 30 years ago.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
11 Feb 2006 10:31:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:57:53 GMT, in talk.origins , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <prrpu1lnlteaetqtutgh43oc7c5k2v8ga7@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:58:54 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:15:05 GMT, in talk.origins , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <10fpu1t14anjc9trl9t3oulbr6cj3p1h5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:41:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:
I'm going to guess you have never taken an economics course and
certainly not a macroeconomics course.
Then you would be wrong.
Then I will try to figure out another reason why you made so many
errors.
I don't.
And, yet, you were unable to respond to the rest of my post and unable
to even mark the snip.
I got as far as it was worth going.
Says the man who did not, in fact, read the rest of the post. Or
produce any actual rebuttal.
I think I will have to go with the report of
the people who actually studied the subject. They say it will cost
$1-2 trillion, not the profit you expect. "Is not" is not a valid
rebuttal.
Oh dear - just like creationists - unable to think in your own right.
ROTLMAO. Yeah, just like creationists I accept the word of the experts
in the field who actually work on the material. That is exactly what
creationists do. They don't, like you for example, assert that they
have expertise to refute the experts and they don't make claims
without bothering to get any evidence.
If you took the time to both study and think about the matter you
would discover how very stupid your view is.
And, yet, the subject field experts who did study the subject came to
a conclusion that differs from yours. I wonder why they are so stupid.
I bet you are one of
those that didn;t see the profit in going to the moon in 1969.
I would bet that you could figure out some of the fallacies in that
statement.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 03:41:03 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:53:31 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:53:00 GMT, in talk.origins , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <s2ciu15lcmqsnluf70p9nj87q0vs928idm@4ax.com>
wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 14:23:45 -0800, enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:04:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:43:19 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:H6OdnfHQqfi59nXeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK -
God forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the
war in Vietnam. But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the
liberation of Iraq is now costing more each month than the
preservation of the Republic of South Vietnam did more than 30
years ago.
A careful study by two Economics professors indicated the actual
cost of the Iraq war to date is approximately one trillion dollars
which works out to
You have to be kidding.
It will be a miracle if the direct costs come in at less than half a
trillions, so I don't find the estimate of an overall cost of twice
that very surprising.
The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.
There is the cost of lost production by the temporary diversion of
manpower.
You mean you have no unemployed in the US?
I'm going to guess you have never taken an economics course and
certainly not a macroeconomics course.
Then you would be wrong.
But, then, not all truth is literal.
Yes, we have unemployed and no,
that does not mean there is no lost productivity. For the most part,
and this is quantifiable, companies do less rather than temporarily
replace the people called up.
Most companies would not even notice the odd member of staff going
missing.
Then how inefficient this system must be, capitalism. Actually, there
are good economic reasons why competitive companies in efficient
markets may nonetheless tend to keep a little labor slack about.
Beyond the costs in time and treasure of firing and rehiring, employees
tend to prefer a stable relationship with their employer, there are
efficiencies to knowing, rather than guessing, employees' skill sets,
and having a stock of employees familiar how the company does things,
etc.
The people doing this research did not
just pull numbers from the air. AFAIK no one has seriously objected to
their work.
Also, the permanent loss by death and crippling injury.
Difficult to quantify.
True, but it is tiny when seen on a national level.
A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, pretty soon you are
talking about real money.
And as long as it remains in the closed economy it makes little
difference - except, maybe, to inflation.
The United States is not a closed economy; in fact, much of the dollar
cost of this war is being borrowed from abroad. I'm not sure why
you're so sanguine about inflation. Since 1979 US monetary policy has
been predicated on the notion that excessive inflation mucks up
economic growth more than many had previously thought. The important
thing here is not whether you or I agree on this point, but that the
Federal Reserve does and if the war continues to be financed through
increased borrowing, the Fed is likely eventually to show disapproval
by giving us a serious smack in the interest rates.
Or we could raise taxes, which I'm also told is bad. Oh, we could cut
other government spending commensurate with our national security
consumption -- but, hey, with spend-and-spend conservatives in office,
when's that going to happen?
Or, to put it another way, you have just
shifted your argument from saying it will likely be a net profit to
saying this particular cost (2,500+ dead, 17,000 or so wounded,
hundreds, if not thousands, maimed) is "tiny" on a national level.
No change in argument at all.
And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.
Depends on what you mean by loss. I consider giving tax dollars to
Haliburton a net loss. I will not get back its equvalent from them; all
*I get from the war is a politically divided country, a bad reputation
overseas, and greater politcal insecurity.
If money is spent within an economy the net wealth doesn't change -
provided people are employed and of course taxes paid.
So give me all of your money, the net wealth won't change, will it?
Yes it would, I'm not in the USA.
Ah, you cleaver S.O.B., but the EARTH is a closed economy...
Though since Halliburton pays so much less a % in taxes than you or I
it is a net loss anyway.
No, they pay out money to shareholders and workers.
Look, are the only reasons we don't all assign our wages to Paris
Hilton class resentment and economic superstition? Ok, I'm not willing
to assume that the net effect of transfering more national income to
the likes of Halliburton would be for more of that cash to end up
abroad, or increase the share of taxes the rest of us have to pay, but
that's the way I'd bet, if required.
Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.
How much would we have gained (or lost) if we had chosen alternative
actions? Anyone who thinks they know what the price would be (and I
don't mean just in dollars) for various alternative decisions in this
chaotic situation is naive at best.
Again, true. However, for the people of Iraq, and most of the middle
east, the end of Saddam has been a blessing.
That adds to one side of the ledger, it does not erase the other side.
Saddam is gone, Hamas is in power, Shiite are in power in Iraq, the
Moslem Brotherhood got 20% or so of the vote in Egypt, it is not all
that clear how much of a net good this has been. For women, for
example, Iraq is getting worse.
Firking RUBBISH! Did you miss the number of women voting a couple of
months ago?
I assume you're referring to his comment that things are getting worse
for Iraqi women, as thats the only part of his statement that could be
disputed, much less be considered rubbish, much less RUBBISH, even
further less firking RUBBISH. But let's consider for sake of mindless
disputation that Matt used that word "ledger" up there for some
non-aesthetic purpose. It follows that maybe you show put the RUBBISH
factor aside, and acknowledge that the re-injection of sharia into
Iraqi public life is one item that should be weighed against the new
breath of freedom felt within recently-purchased burqas as their owners
joyfully cast their first meaningful vote. Then there's all that other
stuff Matt suggested should be entered into the calculus, and you might
have not ignored.
I think giving Iraqis elected government is a great achievement. But
I'm a moderate, and not one of those wild types who think we have to
worry much about all the good we may do being undone by the
irrationalities of the Arab street. I mean, are they really that easy
to set off?
And how much do we lose by being the bad bully of the decade? That is,
the cost of reduced good will, reduced trade, etc.
To be honest, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference.
Certainly it seems to have had no effect in the UK.
Have you factored in the loss to interest for the national debt?
Suppose there is one more terrorist attack on the scale of the Twin
Towers because of this; how much would that cost? I am well aware, too,
that we could not know for sure if it would not have happened without
the Iraq invasion - the Bushites would undoubtedly say it would have
been worse. If we truly do not have a reasonable idea of the
consequences of our actions, perhaps we should err on the side of peace
and cooperation.
Speaking personally, I'm sure that the invasion has saved thousands of
innocent lives. In the long run it will improve peace and security in
both the middle east and the world in general. I also believe that in
the long run the USA will be a better place for having taken a stand.
There were many ways to take a stand. Doing a stupid thing for good
reasons is still a stupid thing.
Then I'm glad both our countries did the right thing and carried out
the resolutions of the UNSC.
And is the UNSC glad? That must be asked, since you evidently consider
it a font of legitimacy.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 03:56:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Mitchell Coffey" <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote:
Ah, you cleaver S.O.B., but the EARTH is a closed economy...
No, aliens are trading technology for licenses to probe.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 11:48:13 PM |
|
|
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dsgdq9$amc$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Mitchell Coffey" <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote:
Ah, you cleaver S.O.B., but the EARTH is a closed economy...
No, aliens are trading technology for licenses to probe.
Oh, dear.
That makes me feel so, so... CHEAP.
-JAH
"Hey, big, uh...'boy'?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
07 Feb 2006 08:48:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 14:23:45 -0800, enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:04:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:43:19 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:H6OdnfHQqfi59nXeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK -
God forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the
war in Vietnam. But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the
liberation of Iraq is now costing more each month than the
preservation of the Republic of South Vietnam did more than 30
years ago.
A careful study by two Economics professors indicated the actual
cost of the Iraq war to date is approximately one trillion dollars
which works out to
You have to be kidding.
It will be a miracle if the direct costs come in at less than half a
trillions, so I don't find the estimate of an overall cost of twice
that very surprising.
The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.
There is the cost of lost production by the temporary diversion of
manpower.
You mean you have no unemployed in the US?
Also, the permanent loss by death and crippling injury.
Difficult to quantify.
True, but it is tiny when seen on a national level.
And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.
Depends on what you mean by loss. I consider giving tax dollars to
Haliburton a net loss. I will not get back its equvalent from them; all
*I get from the war is a politically divided country, a bad reputation
overseas, and greater politcal insecurity.
If money is spent within an economy the net wealth doesn't change -
provided people are employed and of course taxes paid.
Ah, the "trickle down" economy rears its ugly head again.
It didn't float all boats in the Reagan era, and it isn't floating all
boats today.
Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.
How much would we have gained (or lost) if we had chosen alternative
actions? Anyone who thinks they know what the price would be (and I
don't mean just in dollars) for various alternative decisions in this
chaotic situation is naive at best.
Again, true. However, for the people of Iraq, and most of the middle
east, the end of Saddam has been a blessing.
And how much do we lose by being the bad bully of the decade? That is,
the cost of reduced good will, reduced trade, etc.
To be honest, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference.
Certainly it seems to have had no effect in the UK.
Have you factored in the loss to interest for the national debt?
Suppose there is one more terrorist attack on the scale of the Twin
Towers because of this; how much would that cost? I am well aware, too,
that we could not know for sure if it would not have happened without
the Iraq invasion - the Bushites would undoubtedly say it would have
been worse. If we truly do not have a reasonable idea of the
consequences of our actions, perhaps we should err on the side of peace
and cooperation.
Speaking personally, I'm sure that the invasion has saved thousands of
innocent lives. In the long run it will improve peace and security in
both the middle east and the world in general. I also believe that in
the long run the USA will be a better place for having taken a stand.
Things certainly haven't been headed that way so far. Do you have some
reason to believe everything's going to change if we just grit our teeth
and hang in there a few more years?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
08 Feb 2006 04:54:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 02:48:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Speaking personally, I'm sure that the invasion has saved thousands of
innocent lives. In the long run it will improve peace and security in
both the middle east and the world in general. I also believe that in
the long run the USA will be a better place for having taken a stand.
Things certainly haven't been headed that way so far. Do you have some
reason to believe everything's going to change if we just grit our teeth
and hang in there a few more years?
Sorry, but that is exactly the way things have been headed.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
07 Feb 2006 01:03:05 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>
Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.
Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?
Thnx.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
07 Feb 2006 03:22:07 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>
Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.
Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?
Thnx.
I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
07 Feb 2006 11:24:33 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>
Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.
Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?
Thnx.
I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."
So whatever we may think about the Iran/Iraq war (it was futile,
certainly), a war is not the same thing as "Saddam killed over 600,000
of his own citizens." when that figure includes a war.
It would be like saying that "Bush killed over 2,000 of his own
citizens." while waging war againt Iraq.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 03:14:21 PM |
|
|
Olrik wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>
Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.
Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this)
but haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?
Thnx.
I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."
So whatever we may think about the Iran/Iraq war (it was futile,
certainly), a war is not the same thing as "Saddam killed over 600,000
of his own citizens." when that figure includes a war.
It would be like saying that "Bush killed over 2,000 of his own
citizens." while waging war againt Iraq.
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
----------
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water
Supply by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency 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.
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."
The document goes into great technical detail
about the sources and quality of Iraq's water
supply. The quality of untreated water "generally
is poor," and drinking such water "could result
in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics
of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and
typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of
chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions.
"Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
is critically low. "Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly,
pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure
water that is free from biological contaminants,"
it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi counter-
measures to obtain drinkable water despite
sanctions. "Iraq conceivably could truck water
from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas.
But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The
amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping
stations would limit laying pipelines to these
reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine
purification, the water still would contain
biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis
could obtain their own minimally adequate
supply of good quality water from Northern
Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be
safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries
requiring large quantities of pure water would
not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of
Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter
and spring, but it falls primarily in the
northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains,
sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains.
But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide
adequate pure water. "As an alternative, "Iraq
could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment
supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"
the document says. "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."
In cold language, the document spells out what is
in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages
of purified water because of the lack of required
chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences
of disease, including possible epidemics, will
become probable unless the population were
careful to boil water. "The document gives a
timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment
capability will suffer a slow decline, rather
than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water
treatment capability, it probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the
Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the
news media showed little interest in it. The only
reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday
Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and
Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did
a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents
that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the
degradation of Iraq's water supply. These
documents have not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease
Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991.
At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is
blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be
attributable to degradation of normal preventive
medicine, waste disposal, water purification/
distribution, electricity, and decreased ability
to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in
Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will
have similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely
outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought
on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and
salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which
will affect "particularly children," or by
rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly
children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And
it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera
outbreaks. The document warns that the Iraqi
government may "blame the United States for
public health problems created by the military
conflict." The second DIA document, "Disease
Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990,
but the year is clearly a typo and should be
1991.
It states: "Conditions are favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in
major urban areas affected by coalition bombing."
It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major
Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since
the beginning of Desert Storm. . ..
Current public health problems are attributable to
the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste
disposal, water purification and distribution,
electricity, and the decreased ability to control
disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases
during next sixty-ninety days
(descending order): diarrheal diseases
(particularly children); acute respiratory
illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid;
hepatitis A (particularly children); measles,
diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly
children); meningitis, including meningococcal
(particularly children); cholera (possible,
but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that
the Iraqi government might "propagandize
increases of endemic diseases. "The third
document
in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is
dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable
diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than
usually observed during this time of the year
and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions
(contaminated water supplies and improper sewage
disposal) resulting from the war. According to
a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World
Health Organization report, the quantity of
potable water is less than 5 percent of the
original supply, there are no operational
water and sewage treatment plants, and the
reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above
normal levels. Additionally, respiratory
infections are on the rise. Children particularly
have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document
states, "There are indications that the situation
is improving and that the population is coping
with the degraded conditions." But it adds:
"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks."
The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee
Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says,
"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee
camps. Further infectious diseases will spread
due to inadequate water treatment and poor
sanitation." The reason for this outbreak is
clearly stated again. "The main causes of
infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea,
dysentery, and upper respiratory problems,
are poor sanitation and unclean water. These
diseases primarily afflict the old and young
children."
The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq,
June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can
make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess
health conditions and determine the most critical
medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi
medical system was in considerable disarray,
medical facilities had been extensively looted,
and almost all medicines were in critically short
supply."
In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least
80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At
this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera,
hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out.
"The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor
was observed in Iraq "for the first time,"
the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing
children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of
the deaths were children (with the exception
of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were
children)."
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current
Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated
November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct
damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins:
"Restoration of Iraq's public health services and
shortages of major medical materiel remain
dominant international concerns. Both issues
apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein
in an effort to keep public opinion firmly
against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and
to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."
It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although
current countrywide infectious disease incidence
in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf
War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that
some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will
continue to exploit disease incidence data for
its own political purposes." And it places the
blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's
medical supply shortages are the result of the
central government's stockpiling, selective
distribution, and exploitation of domestic and
international relief medical resources." It adds:
"Resumption of public health programs . . .
depends completely on the Iraqi government."
As these documents illustrate, the United States
knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the
water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what
the consequences would be: increased outbreaks
of disease and high rates of child mortality. And
it was more concerned about the public relations
nightmare for Washington than the actual
nightmare that the sanctions created for
innocent Iraqis.
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.
At a House hearing on June 7, Representative
Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred
to the document "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi
public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva
Convention and of the fundamental laws of
civilized nations."
Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll
by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to
import the few chemicals and items of equipment
it needed in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of
Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright "about the profound effects of the
increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply
and sanitation systems on its children's health."
Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under
five years of age--diarrheal 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 U.S.
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. "For more than ten years, the
United States has deliberately pursued a policy of
destroying the water treatment system of Iraq,
knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The
United Nations has estimated that more than
500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of
sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue
to die every month for this reason. No one can
say that the United States didn't know
what it was doing.
See for Yourself All the DIA documents mentioned
in this article were found at the Department of
Defense's Gulflink site.
To read or print documents:
1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil
2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left
side of the front page
3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently
Declassified Documents"
4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents"
on the left side of that page
5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently
Declassified Documents"
6.enter search terms such as "disease information
effects of bombing"
7.click on the search button
8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"
9.click on DIA
10.click on one of the titles
Its not the best-organized site on the Internet,
but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be
helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy
Thomas J. Nagy teaches at the School of Business
and Public Management at George Washington
University.
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 04:02:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
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.
Presumably the US government (probably *all* governments) includes
the foreign "collateral casualties" term with a weight of zero when
calculating the cost/benefit analysis for a policy.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 09:52:07 PM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
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.
Presumably the US government (probably *all* governments) includes
the foreign "collateral casualties" term with a weight of zero when
calculating the cost/benefit analysis for a policy.
The Nagy materials show we knew epidemics and deaths would follow our
sanctions. We kept the sanctions for years.
I have no idea if anybody weighed anything, these people
may have been as stupid as the people here on the net trying to avoid
admitting to the fact the US is as evil as Saddam in this regard.
The ability of most people to rationalize even mass murder and avoid
looking at facts they don't want to admit to is immense.
10 years on the net has shown me many people simply are not really
concious and alive, they're ideological automatons.
The more I run into this, the more horrified I get.
Clinton and Bush could have killed 10 million
and people would still deny it.
Often, the very concept of humanity has begun
to disgust me. So few worth really considering human.
The largest portion are little better than apes.
To this day the Turks won't admit to the
Armenian Massacre and the Japanese will not admit
to their war crimes in China in writing. Older Germans
often wore they saw nothing going on around them
when the Nazis took over. Our religious leaders
did not speak out as the US supported a long list
of genocidal far right dictators from Pol Pot to
Pinochet, Saddam, Rios Montt or others. Moslems
did not riot or demonstrate as the Taliban destroyed
entire provinces in Afghanistan, with scorched
earth tactics, or for that matter, Saddam's murders.
Why should I expect Americans to differ, especially
the right wingers?
I have a very low opinion of the average man and
the street and lower for religious and political
leaders. My mood gets darker the older I get.
Many people are merely wastes of good oxygen and
there seems to be no way to change that or make
them actually think.
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
11 Feb 2006 06:21:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:52:07 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
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.
Presumably the US government (probably *all* governments) includes
the foreign "collateral casualties" term with a weight of zero when
calculating the cost/benefit analysis for a policy.
The Nagy materials show we knew epidemics and deaths would follow our
sanctions. We kept the sanctions for years.
Sanctions did not apply to medical supplies nor food. So why would
epidemics and deaths follow sanctions?
I have no idea if anybody weighed anything, these people
may have been as stupid as the people here on the net trying to avoid
admitting to the fact the US is as evil as Saddam in this regard.
The ability of most people to rationalize even mass murder and avoid
looking at facts they don't want to admit to is immense.
10 years on the net has shown me many people simply are not really
concious and alive, they're ideological automatons.
The more I run into this, the more horrified I get.
Very true, more horrified at the evil of Saddam and his government.
Clinton and Bush could have killed 10 million
and people would still deny it.
But they didin't.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 05:08:20 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 08:58:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
DID YOU READ THE NAGY ARTICLE?!
We denied them material KNOWING it would cause mass death.
Now. Again, I seem to have to post this now about once a month for some
reason.
The UN allowed Saddam to sel oil.
The money did NOT GO TO SADDAM!
It went into a bank account.
The UN/US decided what Iraq could import.
And that was sent and money taken from the bank accounts.
Saddam smuggled out oil and collected money smuggled in.
US firms did most the buying.
The US played games with Iraq. Example, allowing
insulin to be imported but NOT SYRINGES!
And rolls its eyes and blames Saddam for ITS CRIMINAL ACTS.
Ove ryears, it refused to allow the marterials
needed to keep what remained of the water systems working.
READ NAGY! We KNEW this would case math deaths and
WENT ON DOING IT! Albright admitted it and said it was worth it.
Saddam wasn't doing it WE WERE!
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.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
NOTE! NOTE! Not does Saddam thinks it
worth it but does Albright think as official
head of the State Department is it worth it.
Yes.
Now, we bombed their water and sewer systems
and several dams, all war crimes.
We imposed sanctions on them that US documents
show we KNEW would cuase mass epidemics.
And peopel don't think for a New York Second
before blurting out that Saddam spent the money
without thinking he never a penny of it.
Lots of news has been out about this for
years and nobody bothered to learn any of
it as it was in the news.
WE DID ALL THIS KILLING!
Not Saddam, ***** though he was.
Bush and Clinton and the entire leadership of
the US Congress are no better than Saddam and
his Baathist thugs.
And Americans are no better then the Moslems
morons always with excuses for radical bombing thugs.
Why is this hard for 99% of America to understand?
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
11 Feb 2006 06:30:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:58:03 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
DID YOU READ THE NAGY ARTICLE?!
We denied them material KNOWING it would cause mass death.
We did not.
Now. Again, I seem to have to post this now about once a month for some
reason.
The UN allowed Saddam to sel oil.
The money did NOT GO TO SADDAM!
It went into a bank account.
The UN/US decided what Iraq could import.
And that was sent and money taken from the bank accounts.
Saddam smuggled out oil and collected money smuggled in.
US firms did most the buying.
The US played games with Iraq. Example, allowing
insulin to be imported but NOT SYRINGES!
Rubbish. Medical supplies were never the subject of sanctions.
And rolls its eyes and blames Saddam for ITS CRIMINAL ACTS.
Ove ryears, it refused to allow the marterials
needed to keep what remained of the water systems working.
Again. Wrong.
READ NAGY! We KNEW this would case math deaths and
WENT ON DOING IT! Albright admitted it and said it was worth it.
Saddam wasn't doing it WE WERE!
You are nuts.
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.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
NOTE! NOTE! Not does Saddam thinks it
worth it but does Albright think as official
head of the State Department is it worth it.
Yes.
Now, we bombed their water and sewer systems
and several dams, all war crimes.
No. We bombed military targets.
We imposed sanctions on them that US documents
show we KNEW would cuase mass epidemics.
Rubbish.
And peopel don't think for a New York Second
before blurting out that Saddam spent the money
without thinking he never a penny of it.
Care to write that in english?
Lots of news has been out about this for
years and nobody bothered to learn any of
it as it was in the news.
WE DID ALL THIS KILLING!
LIAR!
Not Saddam, ***** though he was.
Bush and Clinton and the entire leadership of
the US Congress are no better than Saddam and
his Baathist thugs.
Moron.
And Americans are no better then the Moslems
morons always with excuses for radical bombing thugs.
Why is this hard for 99% of America to understand?
It is hard because your claims omit the truth that medical supplies
were NEVER part of the sanctions - nor, in effect, was food.
The Baathist elite lived it up while their citizens died - that was
NOT the fault of the UN or western governments.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
09 Feb 2006 05:17:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator. I am quite sure I know why you
are making this rather simple minded equation, but the bottom line is
it is perfectly ok to find fault with the policies of the very people
who can control that policy's future. It is especially OK if that
policy has the indirect effect of causing the deaths of tens of
thousands of children. That the architects of that policy felt that the
deaths of all those people was worth the price is a legitimate target
for criticism.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 07:53:12 AM |
|
|
Noone Inparticular wrote:
firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator.
And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with. Thank you for playing.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 09:02:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Noone Inparticular wrote:
firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator.
And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with. Thank you for playing.
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.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water
Supply by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond
a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention,
the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions
against Iraq to degrade thecountry'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 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."
The document goes into great technical detail
about the sources and quality of Iraq's water
supply. The quality of untreated water "generally
is poor," and drinking such water "could result
in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics
of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and
typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of
chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions.
"Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
is critically low. "Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly,
pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure
water that is free from biological contaminants,"
it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi counter-
measures to obtain drinkable water despite
sanctions. "Iraq conceivably could truck water
from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas.
But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The
amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping
stations would limit laying pipelines to these
reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine
purification, the water still would contain
biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis
could obtain their own minimally adequate
supply of good quality water from Northern
Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be
safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries
requiring large quantities of pure water would
not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of
Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter
and spring, but it falls primarily in the
northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains,
sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains.
But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide
adequate pure water. "As an alternative, "Iraq
could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment
supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"
the document says. "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."
In cold language, the document spells out what is
in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages
of purified water because of the lack of required
chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences
of disease, including possible epidemics, will
become probable unless the population were
careful to boil water. "The document gives a
timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment
capability will suffer a slow decline, rather
than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water
treatment capability, it probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the
Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the
news media showed little interest in it. The only
reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday
Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and
Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did
a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents
that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the
degradation of Iraq's water supply. These
documents have not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease
Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991.
At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is
blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be
attributable to degradation of normal preventive
medicine, waste disposal, water purification/
distribution, electricity, and decreased ability
to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in
Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will
have similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely
outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought
on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and
salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which
will affect "particularly children," or by
rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly
children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And
it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera
outbreaks. The document warns that the Iraqi
government may "blame the United States for
public health problems created by the military
conflict." The second DIA document, "Disease
Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990,
but the year is clearly a typo and should be
1991.
It states: "Conditions are favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in
major urban areas affected by coalition bombing."
It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major
Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since
the beginning of Desert Storm. . ..
Current public health problems are attributable to
the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste
disposal, water purification and distribution,
electricity, and the decreased ability to control
disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases
during next sixty-ninety days
(descending order): diarrheal diseases
(particularly children); acute respiratory
illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid;
hepatitis A (particularly children); measles,
diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly
children); meningitis, including meningococcal
(particularly children); cholera (possible,
but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that
the Iraqi government might "propagandize
increases of endemic diseases. "The third
document
in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is
dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable
diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than
usually observed during this time of the year
and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions
(contaminated water supplies and improper sewage
disposal) resulting from the war. According to
a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World
Health Organization report, the quantity of
potable water is less than 5 percent of the
original supply, there are no operational
water and sewage treatment plants, and the
reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above
normal levels. Additionally, respiratory
infections are on the rise. Children particularly
have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document
states, "There are indications that the situation
is improving and that the population is coping
with the degraded conditions." But it adds:
"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks."
The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee
Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says,
"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee
camps. Further infectious diseases will spread
due to inadequate water treatment and poor
sanitation." The reason for this outbreak is
clearly stated again. "The main causes of
infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea,
dysentery, and upper respiratory problems,
are poor sanitation and unclean water. These
diseases primarily afflict the old and young
children."
The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq,
June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can
make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess
health conditions and determine the most critical
medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi
medical system was in considerable disarray,
medical facilities had been extensively looted,
and almost all medicines were in critically short
supply."
In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least
80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At
this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera,
hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out.
"The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor
was observed in Iraq "for the first time,"
the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing
children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of
the deaths were children (with the exception
of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were
children)."
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current
Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated
November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct
damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins:
"Restoration of Iraq's public health services and
shortages of major medical materiel remain
dominant international concerns. Both issues
apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein
in an effort to keep public opinion firmly
against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and
to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."
It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although
current countrywide infectious disease incidence
in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf
War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that
some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will
continue to exploit disease incidence data for
its own political purposes." And it places the
blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's
medical supply shortages are the result of the
central government's stockpiling, selective
distribution, and exploitation of domestic and
international relief medical resources." It adds:
"Resumption of public health programs . . .
depends completely on the Iraqi government."
As these documents illustrate, the United States
knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the
water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what
the consequences would be: increased outbreaks
of disease and high rates of child mortality. And
it was more concerned about the public relations
nightmare for Washington than the actual
nightmare that the sanctions created for
innocent Iraqis.
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.
At a House hearing on June 7, Representative
Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred
to the document "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi
public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva
Convention and of the fundamental laws of
civilized nations."
Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll
by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to
import the few chemicals and items of equipment
it needed in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of
Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright "about the profound effects of the
increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply
and sanitation systems on its children's health."
Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under
five years of age--diarrheal 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 U.S.
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. "For more than ten years, the
United States has deliberately pursued a policy of
destroying the water treatment system of Iraq,
knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The
United Nations has estimated that more than
500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of
sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue
to die every month for this reason. No one can
say that the United States didn't know
what it was doing.
See for Yourself All the DIA documents mentioned
in this article were found at the Department of
Defense's Gulflink site.
To read or print documents:
1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil
2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left
side of the front page
3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently
Declassified Documents"
4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents"
on the left side of that page
5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently
Declassified Documents"
6.enter search terms such as "disease information
effects of bombing"
7.click on the search button
8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"
9.click on DIA
10.click on one of the titles
Its not the best-organized site on the Internet,
but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be
helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy
Thomas J. Nagy teaches at the School of Business
and Public Management at George Washington
University.
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 10:59:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Noone Inparticular wrote:
firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
George Bush and Bill Clinton killed more than Saddam.
If people REALLY cared about mass murder, they'd have
both these clowns up for genocide and murder.
Most only rant about Saddam's murders to excuse AWOL
Bush's mass lies. That is all this has ever been about.
-----------
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?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. The *UN* imposes sanctions
on Iraq, which limits Iraq's cash flow. The *Iraqi* government
decides to maintain weapons programs, lavish palaces, and
cash payouts to terrorist organizations instead of feeding
the Iraqi people. Somehow, the resultant deaths of Iraqi
children are the personal responsibility of George Bush and
Bill Clinton. How does that work again?
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator.
And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with.
Indeed I am. GW1 and Clinton *DO* bear some responsibility for the
consequences of their policies. Duh.
Thank you for playing.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 12:22:15 PM |
|
|
Noone Inparticular wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
Noone Inparticular wrote:
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator.
And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with.
Indeed I am. GW1 and Clinton *DO* bear some responsibility for the
consequences of their policies.
Their policy wasn't "starve Iraqi children", though, so any attempt
to blame them for the decisions of the Iraqi government in this
matter are patently ridiculous. If your boss cuts your pay from
upper middle class to lower middle class, and you let your kids
starve to death because you didn't want to give up your luxury
car and mansion, would any sensible person agree with you
if you said your kids' deaths were your boss' fault?
Duh.
Such a sparkling conversationalist you turned out to be.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far |
10 Feb 2006 09:07:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Noone Inparticular wrote:
wrote:
Noone Inparticular wrote:
You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a
policy with appeasement of a brutal dictator.
And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with.
Indeed I am. GW1 and Clinton *DO* bear some responsibility for the
consequences of their policies.
Their policy wasn't "starve Iraqi children", though, so any attempt
to blame them for the decisions of the Iraqi government in this
matter are patently ridiculous. If your boss cuts your pay from
upper middle class to lower middle class, and you let your kids
starve to death because you didn't want to give up your luxury
car and mansion, would any sensible person agree with you
if you said your kids' deaths were your boss' fault?
Our policies achieved that though.
But more to teh point, were teh dead who died
for mdiseases caused by bad water due to purposeful
destruction of water and sewer systems and later
sanctions, which the US knew would cause mass epidemics.
We know have a little game.
Those of us with morals point out it is murder and
evil, those with political ideologies and no morals
try to find a way to deny it is indeed evil, or blame somebody else.
This is evil. Te question is, why so
many happy to be evil and suport evil?
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.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water
Supply by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond
a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention,
the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions
against Iraq to degrade thecountry'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 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."
The document goes into great technical detail
about the sources and quality of Iraq's water
supply. The quality of untreated water "generally
is poor," and drinking such water "could result
in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics
of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and
typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of
chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions.
"Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
is critically low. "Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly,
pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure
water that is free from biological contaminants,"
it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi counter-
measures to obtain drinkable water despite
sanctions. "Iraq conceivably could truck water
from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas.
But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The
amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping
stations would limit laying pipelines to these
reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine
purification, the water still would contain
biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis
could obtain their own minimally adequate
supply of good quality water from Northern
Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be
safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries
requiring large quantities of pure water would
not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of
Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter
and spring, but it falls primarily in the
northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains,
sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains.
But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide
adequate pure water. "As an alternative, "Iraq
could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment
supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"
the document says. "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."
In cold language, the document spells out what is
in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages
of purified water because of the lack of required
chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences
of disease, including possible epidemics, will
become probable unless the population were
careful to boil water. "The document gives a
timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment
capability will suffer a slow decline, rather
than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water
treatment capability, it probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the
Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the
news media showed little interest in it. The only
reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday
Herald of Scotland, w | | | | | | | | | | |
