| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2005 01:15:12 PM |
| Object: |
Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
.
|
|
| User: "rightwinghank" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 06:51:58 PM |
|
|
Dear Laura Bushy.....you cant call it a Holocaust cause no jews were
killed.
In other words....the liberal media owned by jews would never let that
happen.
The rest of us non jews dont count for *****.
We were never chosen.
love
hank
.....................
laura bush the hate monger wrote -
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 09:17:00 PM |
|
|
rightwinghank wrote:
Dear Laura Bushy.....you cant call it a Holocaust cause no jews were
killed.
In other words....the liberal media owned by jews would never let that
happen.
The rest of us non jews dont count for *****.
We were never chosen.
Yup - the jooz call themselves the chosen ones. It's ok to be a joo
supremacist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aunt Judy likes it in the rear" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
06 Dec 2005 08:39:34 PM |
|
|
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
rightwinghank wrote:
Dear Laura Bushy.....you cant call it a Holocaust cause no jews were
killed.
In other words....the liberal media owned by jews would never let that
happen.
The rest of us non jews dont count for *****.
We were never chosen.
Yup - the jooz call themselves the chosen ones. It's ok to be a joo
supremacist.
With good reason; it's obvious the jews are much better than you could
ever dream of being, loser.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doogie Howitzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? --> it is --> "HO'LOTTACO$T" |
07 Dec 2005 04:05:40 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 2005, "Aunt Judy likes it in the rear" uptherbutt for us with...
?
--
Bush has the power, ***** has the pull and Dr. "White"
Rice does the Reich-wing RIGHT, she parrots...
Is this a great cuntry or what!!! Uhhhh, not anymore...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 02:32:57 PM |
|
|
In article <r449p1d2par3552ivvepblnk2v2ed02ms1@4ax.com>, laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE says...
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
Why haven't you killed yourself?
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
10 Dec 2005 06:36:17 AM |
|
|
Chris Morton wrote:
In article <r449p1d2par3552ivvepblnk2v2ed02ms1@4ax.com>, laura bush
- VEHICULAR HOMICIDE says...
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS
in
Why haven't you killed yourself?
The US knowing killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. why
don't you care? Why don't the far right ***** monkey pundits care?
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.
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme. "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck. It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
-George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
11 Dec 2005 03:03:19 AM |
|
|
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. >>>
There's a couple of reason why Iraq isn't considered a holocaust. The
first is because the left used to consider the sanctions to be murder.
However, the left now supports sanctions, so, it's kinda hard to
condemn America for activities they support. Also, it's come out that
Saddam took the "Food For Oil" money, and instead of squandering it on
food for children, spent it on 17 football-statiums sized mansions.
Oh, yes, Saddam also spend the Food For Oil money on paying off
terrorists and UN officals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
11 Dec 2005 11:43:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. >>>
There's a couple of reason why Iraq isn't considered a holocaust. The
first is because the left used to consider the sanctions to be murder.
However, the left now supports sanctions, so, it's kinda hard to
condemn America for activities they support.
That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
11 Dec 2005 05:04:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:15:12 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
Nazis thought the holocaust did not matter. Jews were responsible for
all the trouble in the world. Besides the Jews were all off at holiday
camps.
Bush promotes the same crap about Muslims being responsible for all
the trouble in the world, even though it looks as though not even the
handful he tagged as responsible for 9/11 died in the attack. Most of
them showed up alive.
Bush tells his version of the Hitlerian lie that soldiers are in Iraq
to build schools rather than kill everyone.
I can't believe anyone gives that twit even the tiniest benefit of the
doubt after being caught lying so many times. Surely they know he is
lying but so get their rocks off on war, they pretend otherwise.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
11 Dec 2005 03:33:29 AM |
|
|
On November 24 the number of US dead in Iraq for the month reached 75.
In October, 96 Americans were killed. The corpse total is over 2100.
More than 7,000 of the 15,804 wounded (as at November 24) have lost
limbs or minds or will bear hideous disfigurement to their graves.
What for? Why have they died or been maimed? What righteous cause has
made it imperative for thousands of young Americans to have their lives
cut short or be horribly mutilated?
Cheney is now smearing and insulting those who mistakenly accepted the
word of the President of the United States when he lied about his
reasons for making war on Iraq. Cheney calls opponents of his war
"opportunists" who are telling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" and
sneered at the gallant warrior, Congressman John P Murtha.
Cheney's theme is that Democrats are trying to obtain political mileage
by saying what is so widely known : that he and Bush and Rice and
Rumsfeld and other warped psychopaths told deliberate lies about the
reasons for their brutal crusade.
http://journals.aol.com/foxxgiavani/REALNEWSPOLITICS/entries/2166
Impeach the Liar Bush
Links dedicated to the legal removal of George Bush from the White
House. ... Selected "Impeach Bush" Links. Categories ...
http://www.impeachbush.tv/links/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 03:04:04 PM |
|
|
When you kill people to make USA corporations wealthy, it automatically
is not a holocaust. Their not being Jews has nothing to do with it.
But, the Nazi holocaust did make some Americans wealthy. Sullivan &
Cromwell, Dillon, Read, the Silesian Steel Company, and Thyssen Bank.
And, the Dulles brothers, James Forrestall, William Draper, and
Prescott Bush. You see, Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy only ENDORSED
Nazism. These other guys, whom you never hear about, actually did
business with the Nazis and made a profit off of it. And would have
been well off no matter who won WWII.
Aaron Hirshberg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wanderer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 04:11:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
When you kill people to make USA corporations wealthy, it automatically
is not a holocaust. Their not being Jews has nothing to do with it.
But, the Nazi holocaust did make some Americans wealthy. Sullivan &
Cromwell, Dillon, Read, the Silesian Steel Company, and Thyssen Bank.
And, the Dulles brothers, James Forrestall, William Draper, and
Prescott Bush. You see, Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy only ENDORSED
Nazism. These other guys, whom you never hear about, actually did
business with the Nazis and made a profit off of it. And would have
been well off no matter who won WWII.
But, you know, killing Arabs indiscriminately would be a much
more accurate and correct representation of the term
'anti-semitic'...
--
Z-REX
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 09:12:19 PM |
|
|
Wanderer wrote:
aaronhirshberg@yahoo.com wrote:
When you kill people to make USA corporations wealthy, it automatically
is not a holocaust. Their not being Jews has nothing to do with it.
But, the Nazi holocaust did make some Americans wealthy. Sullivan &
Cromwell, Dillon, Read, the Silesian Steel Company, and Thyssen Bank.
And, the Dulles brothers, James Forrestall, William Draper, and
Prescott Bush. You see, Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy only ENDORSED
Nazism. These other guys, whom you never hear about, actually did
business with the Nazis and made a profit off of it. And would have
been well off no matter who won WWII.
But, you know, killing Arabs indiscriminately would be a much
more accurate and correct representation of the term
'anti-semitic'...
Yes indeed. Most arabs are semites and very few jews are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
10 Dec 2005 05:23:12 AM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS
in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess
that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
The US committed war crimes and the US knew sanctions would
kill more and did it anyway. We have an evil government, every
bit as bad as Saddam Hussein. Not a single right winger ever
cared. Not one.
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.
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme. "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck. It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
-George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
11 Dec 2005 02:15:19 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS
in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess
that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
The US committed war crimes and the US knew sanctions would
kill more and did it anyway. We have an evil government, every
bit as bad as Saddam Hussein. Not a single right winger ever
cared. Not one.
Hell - back in 1996 madeliene albright admitted that the bombing and
sanctions had killed 500,000 CHILDREN in iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And
nobody cared.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't iraq called a HOLOCAUST? |
05 Dec 2005 06:44:39 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
In the last 15 years america has murdered over a MILLION CIVILIANS in
iraq. Of course these victims are ragheads not jooz and i guess that
matters. Similar thing happened in vietnam. America killed TWO
MILLION civilians there but nobody used the h-word for it either.
Saddam trial told of horror in Room 63 By Michael Georgy and Paul Tait
Mon Dec 5, 3:12 PM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Men and women were tortured for days and babies
left to die in an interrogation facility which featured a meat grinder
for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face Saddam
Hussein told the court on Monday.
After weeks of delay and legal arguments over security and the
legitimacy of the court, the trial of Saddam and seven co- defendants
on charges of crimes against humanity heard confusing but graphic
witness evidence of torture and summary execution.
"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with
blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," said 38-year-old
Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in room 63 at the Hakmiya
intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.
Hassan, the first witness to face Saddam in court, said he was 15 when
Saddam visited the village in July 1982 and Shi'ite militants tried to
assassinate him.
Speaking technically as an individual plaintiff alongside the state,
which is pressing charges of crimes against humanity, Hassan said he
and his family were among hundreds of people rounded up in a security
operation run by Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti after an attempt on Saddam's
life in the village.
Barzan, one of Saddam's three younger half-brothers and the former head
of the feared Mukhabarat intelligence service, is one of Saddam's seven
co-accused in the case relating to the killings of 148 mostly Shi'ite
Muslim men from Dujail.
"Barzan was present. He had red cowboy boots and blue jeans and a
sniper rifle," Hassan, a stockily built worker with a round face and a
graying beard, told the heavily fortified court in central Baghdad.
He said Saddam, from the Sunni Arab minority, asked a 15-year-old boy
if he knew who he was. "He said 'Saddam'. Then Saddam hit him in the
head with an ash tray," Hassan said.
Hassan risked reprisals by letting his face appear on television as he
gave evidence.
Toward the end of his testimony he stood facing Saddam as the former
president challenged his testimony. Hassan held Saddam's gaze as Saddam
asked how he could possibly remember the names and birth dates of
people he said were killed, responding that he had memorized them as
they were read out by guards.
With Barzan constantly interjecting from the dock and calling the
testimony lies, Hassan said he was among hundreds of people taken from
the Shi'ite village to the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters, run by
Barzan.
He said it was while he was climbing the stairs there that he saw the
meat grinder. "No one escaped torture," he said.
"They would put a mask on my eyes and because I was young it would fall
down. I saw women being tortured," he said.
"My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father
watched," Hassan said. "They told us, 'why don't you confess, you will
be executed anyway'," he said.
"One man was shot in the leg with two bullets... Some people were
crippled because they had their arms and legs broken."
He said they were held in Hakmiya for 70 days. While they were there a
woman told a guard that her infant baby needed milk or he would die.
"He died and the guard threw him from the window," Hassan told the
court. "Pregnant women gave birth in the prison. Their babies died."
Saddam and his co-defendants have all pleaded not guilty to the
charges. They could be sentenced to death if found guilty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
