|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="blade[quote]"][
| Quote: |
| Well I contend that sanctions were paradoxically responsible for keeping Saddam in power after the Kuwait war was over. Thanks to the sanctions over a million Iraqi's died in the years after the war and at the same time they afforded Saddam the opportunity to strengthen his grip over his people. |
the sanctions kept Saddam in power? 
Show us mideast regimes that have been overthrown by their own people? Other than the Shah who was pro US the answer is none.
Khaddafy is still in power. Assad was never overthrown. Khomeni's regime survives. Some regimes are just too oppressive to be overthrown.
| Quote: |
| Also I find it amusing how western governments conveniently looked the other way when Saddam was gassing the Kurds and poisoning the marsh Arabs when these things were actually happening but then when it suited them a couple of years later to use the very same human violations as one of there pretexts for a war. |
so did the mideast street.
| Quote: |
| As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
But anyway at the time the US was fighting Iran. Khomeni was a fascistic bigot like Saddam.
The US was never happy about Saddam's actions.
| Quote: |
| Over a million people died because of the murderous UN imposed sanctions over a ten year period but in only about five years the US and it's lackeys have managed to kill near the same number in their botched take over of Iraq and I bet that Iraqi's are still dying in their thousands on top of this 1 million figure because they still don't have access to many of the social services we in the west (and they before the first Iraq war) take for granted. |
No it was Saddam who withheld supplies.
In fact Saddam would not even cooperate with food for oil until 1996.
| Quote: |
After the Gulf War, the United Nations imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq that critics charge have led to the deaths of more than a million people -- the majority of them children. Saddam Hussein claims the deaths are in excess of one and a half million. Recent reports in leading newspapers and research studies in medical journals now suggest those numbers may be exaggerated. Still, a heated debate continues over the impact of the sanctions and over whether the United Nations and in particular the United States are responsible or whether Saddam himself has blocked humanitarian aid to further his own propaganda war.
As early as 1991, the U.N. Security Council acknowledged that sanctions were causing the Iraqi people undeniable suffering and proposed an oil-for-food humanitarian program to alleviate malnutrition and disease. The plan allowed Iraq limited sales of oil with revenues to be placed in a U.N.-controlled account for the purchase of approved food and medical supplies. Saddam rejected this program as an infringement of his sovereignty. After years of negotiations, Baghdad finally agreed to the program in 1996 with the first deliveries of aid arriving in 1997. Each year since then the Security Council has increased the Oil-for-Food program, and according to Secretary General Kofi Annan, Iraq now has sufficient resources to alleviate life-threatening disease and hunger. |
So before 1996 Saddam refused to go along with the food for oil. That would make the first five or six years Saddam's fault wouldn't it?
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html
LOOK
| Quote: |
Saddam sells UN drugs on black market
By Christina Lamb [/size]
(Filed: 24/09/2000)
CHILDREN'S medicines sent to Iraq by a British pharmaceutical company under a United Nations programme are being smuggled out of the country and sold on the black market in Lebanon to fund the lavish tastes of Saddam Hussein.
Glaxo-Wellcome has made official complaints to the Foreign Office and to the UN which oversees the Oil for Food Programme. This allows Baghdad to sell limited quantities of oil to buy vital humanitarian supplies for children, the sick and elderly.
The UN Security Council set strict controls to ensure that the medicines went to civilians and not the regime. But a spokesman for Glaxo-Wellcome told The Telegraph that the company has so far traced 15,000 units of Ventolin, part of a consignment of asthma medicine shipped to Iraq, circulating on the black market in Beirut.
The medicines had been transported to Lebanon using vehicles belonging to Iraq's ministry of transport. This indicates that the smuggling is being masterminded at the highest levels and undermines Saddam's claims that people are dying in Iraq because of shortages caused by the trade embargo imposed in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait. However, with the Iraqi dictator still firmly in power despite a decade of sanctions, Britain and America are increasingly isolated as they continue to insist on the embargo. A Foreign Office official acknowledged: "Sanctions are clearly not working but they are desperately clinging on because no one knows what else to do."
Saddam is using the supposed shortages as a propaganda tool, showing pictures of sick children and blaming the West for his people's suffering when his regime is actually smuggling out medicines that it does receive. The Ventolin is thought to be just a fraction of the UN- approved Western medicines illegally sold on by Saddam's lieutenants in a scheme run by his son Uday. The Iraqi opposition estimate that millions of pounds are being raised in this way and used to finance Saddam's regime and the activities of his intelligence services as they step up their work in London and other European capitals.
Glaxo-Wellcome has launched a campaign to warn pharmacists in Lebanon and other Arab states not to sell the smuggled goods. The company is concerned about the safety implications of prescription drugs being sold over the counter as well as being undercut in markets to which it already exports. Last week the Lebanese authorities arrested a number of those involved in selling them.
"Obviously this is a worrying development," said an official at the UN programme office for Iraq. A recent report by the office to the Security Council projected oil revenues for Iraq from December 1999 to June 2000 at �6 billion, which should be spent on health and food, and complained that medicines worth �180 million were still lying in Iraqi warehouses and had not been distributed.
However, there is now increasing pressure to end sanctions both in the Arab world and beyond. Iraqi trade with Syria, Egypt and some Gulf countries has been increasing, as has support for an end to the embargo, and there have been several reports of oil being smuggled through Turkey and the UAE.
Last week Saddam's regime celebrated the arrival of a Russian flight at the newly-reopened Baghdad international airport and Aeroflot executives are awaiting Kremlin approval for the resumption of what will be the first regular commercial flights since the Gulf war. Passengers on last week's flight included oil executives interested in making deals with Iraq.
On Friday, a French plane flew from Paris to Baghdad, carrying doctors, athletes and artists defying a request from the UN committee that upholds the sanctions regime against Iraq. The sanctions committee was informed only on Thursday night of the Friday morning flight and France refused a request to delay the flight for 12 hours so that the issue could be studied. Welcoming the flight at Baghdad, Hussein Saeed, an Iraqi Olympic committee official, said the French had taken "a big initiative in breaking the embargo".
At the same time, boosted by record oil prices and the protests in Britain and across Europe over high fuel costs, Saddam has begun an intensive lobbying campaign to weaken the sanction regime. His efforts already seem to be having some effect. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's new president, recently made a trip to Baghdad, the first elected head of state to visit since the Gulf war. Known for his anti-American rhetoric, President Chavez claimed his visit was necessary because Venezuela currently holds the presidency of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and suggested it was time to end Iraq's isolation.
23 September 2000: French jet breaks UN embargo on Baghdad
19 September 2000: Oil price new weapon for warlike Saddam
18 September 2000: Russia breaks UN sanctions
11 August 2000: Venezuela breaks Saddam ban
2 August 2000: Britain and US isolated over tottering trade embargo on Iraq
17 February 2000: Saddam to blame for sanctions, says FO
24 May 1998: Saddam tries to set up phone network with cash for sick children
21 May 1996: Iraq oil-for-food deal to benefit Gulf War victims |
LOOK
| Quote: |
b]Impact of Sanctions [/b]
Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.
� Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.
� Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.
Photo 1: click here or on image for enlargement and caption
� Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).
Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.
There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government
� Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.
� Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region. |
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
LOOK
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look
| Quote: |
A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.
The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.
The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy voters by expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".
How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?
The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.
The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy.
We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the US ambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his colleagues a year ago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the oil-for-food program is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people." Besides the provision of food and medicine, the real issue today is that Iraqi oil revenues must be invested in the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf war.
Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.
The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people hostage, in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to ever-shifting demands. The UN secretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has repeatedly been prevented from taking this role by the US and the UK governments.
The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructive ambiguity" as the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as a useful tool when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismiss criticism by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad. If this is true, why do we punish them further?
The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program).
The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.
The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.
What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."
We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulous policies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by those who know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with false and malicious arguments.
The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN arms inspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind the anthrax scare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin within the US.
British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.
We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. The implications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are too serious for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of leaders in the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not ignored by the US government. What is now most urgently needed is an attack on injustice, not on the Iraqi people.
Hans von Sponeck was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to 2000. Denis Halliday held the same post from 1997 to 1998 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeriocookie
Joined: 06 May 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: Australia: Government may pursue Iran for inciting hatre |
|
|
[quote="mises"][url]http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.2161602956[/url]
[quote]Australia: Government may pursue Iran for inciting hatred
Canberra, 14 May (AKI) - The Australian government is preparing to prosecute Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice for inciting hatred against Israel.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the government is getting legal advice on whether Australia could take action against the Iranian president.
The government first raised the idea that it would try to take the Iranian leader to the international court last year.
On Wednesday, Rudd told the Sky television news channel that Ahmadinejad's repeated comments about eliminating Israel were appalling.
"They are an incitement to international violence," he said.
"What we have said in the past is that we will take legal advice, which the attorney-general is currently doing, in terms of whether there is a profitable way forward here through the appropriate international legal mechanisms."
Attorney-general Robert McClelland also told The Australian newspaper that the government was seeking legal advice on taking Ahmadinejad to the ICJ.
"The government considers the comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for the destruction of Israel and questioning the existence of the holocaust, to be repugnant and offensive," McClelland told The Australian.
"The government is currently taking advice on this matter."
He told the newspaper there was a potential for loss of life if international legal mechanisms were not pursued.
Australia is the only country in the world pursuing Iran's leader for allegedly "inciting genocide" and denying the holocaust.
McClelland, a minister in the centre left Labor government elected last year, pushed for the campaign against Ahmadinejad when he was foreign affairs spokesman while in opposition.
Before the election in 2007 Rudd promised the Jewish community he would take legal proceedings against Ahmadinejad to the ICJ.[/quote]
This is an interesting idea. Can the global order be made less hateful via hate-crimes trials? I don't think this will have the outcomes Rudd desires.[/quote]
I totally disagree with you. It will. Every little move usually helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeriocookie
Joined: 06 May 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to expand on my idea:
Even symbolic actions can hurt a government. Look at the global views and attitudes towards the United States, and how they have helped to push domestic politics in the US in a different direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
Look
| Quote: |
A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.
The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.
The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy voters by expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".
How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?
The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.
The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy.
We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the US ambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his colleagues a year ago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the oil-for-food program is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people." Besides the provision of food and medicine, the real issue today is that Iraqi oil revenues must be invested in the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf war.
Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.
The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people hostage, in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to ever-shifting demands. The UN secretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has repeatedly been prevented from taking this role by the US and the UK governments.
The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructive ambiguity" as the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as a useful tool when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismiss criticism by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad. If this is true, why do we punish them further?
The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program).
The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.
The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.
What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."
We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulous policies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by those who know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with false and malicious arguments.
The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN arms inspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind the anthrax scare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin within the US.
British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.
We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. The implications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are too serious for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of leaders in the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not ignored by the US government. What is now most urgently needed is an attack on injustice, not on the Iraqi people.
Hans von Sponeck was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to 2000. Denis Halliday held the same post from 1997 to 1998 |
|
Let record show that:
Dennis Haliday
Opposed:
1) sanctions on Iraq
2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam
3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq
4) was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted.
5) He never said anything about corruption of the food for oil program.
Which means either :
a) He didn�t know which means that Saddam deceived him and so his opinion counts for little because he was out of touch.
b) He did know but he didn�t care which means that he wasn�t doing his job in that case his opinion ought to count for little because he wasn't doing his job.;
c) He knew what Saddam was doing but he supported it � that case his opinion ought not to count for much because he was in league with Saddam.
6) Opposed taking down Saddam too.
So he favored letting Saddam ( a killer worse than Idi Amin ) go free, which shows that he was soft on Saddam.
Hans von Sponeck
Opposed:
1) sanctions on Iraq
2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam
3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq
Was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted.
He never said anything about this.
Which means either:
a) He didn�t know what was going on which means that Saddam deceived him and so his opinion counts for little because he was so out of touch.
b) He did know about the food for oil scandal but he didn�t care which means that case his opinion ought not count for much cause he wasn't doing his job.
c) He knew what Saddam was doing with food for oil but he supported it � that case his opinion ought not to count for much because he was in league with Saddam.
He also Opposed taking down Saddam�s regime .
So he favored letting Saddam ( a killer worse than Idi Amin ) go free, which shows that he was soft on Saddam.
| Quote: |
| b]The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF and Save the Children.[/b] A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering. |
It was saddam who withheld food and medical supplies plus Saddam would not even comply with food for oil untill 1996 or 1997
| Quote: |
| The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy. |
The UN was on Saddam's payroll. They were smart not to let the UN security council run things.
And the fact shows Saddam did not comply with the food for oil . It was Saddam's fault. Besides which if there were no sanctions then Saddam would rearm.
| Quote: |
| British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments. |
Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait well after the gulf war.
Saddam continued to support terror groups after the gulf war.
And Saddam had lots of stuff that he was not supposed to have. Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions. He even tried to buy North Korea's latest weapon.
What do you think that Saddam and his sons were going to make nice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Let record show that:
Dennis Haliday
Opposed:
1) sanctions on Iraq
|
Actually Halliday proposed that smart sanctions be used against Saddam.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
2) No fly zones � which protected Kurds from Saddam
|
I believe he was against more against the continued bombing of preselected targets which had nothing to do with protecting the Kurds.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
3) Opposed smart sanctions on Iraq
|
Actually he proposed smart sanctions, didn't you know this?
| Quote: |
4) was in charge of the food for oil program. Which was corrupted. |
People with an agenda would like to believe this, but to date nobody has been able to show how the alleged corruption of oil for food program adversely effected how it was ran.
| Quote: |
5) He never said anything about corruption of the food for oil program. |
Again no. Here is an old interview Amy Goodman did with Dennis Halliday in which Halliday specifically mentioned the oil for food scandal.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/17/fmr_iraq_oil_for_food_head
| Quote: |
Which means either :
a) He didn�t know which means that Saddam deceived him and so his opinion counts for little because he was out of touch.
|
I value his opinion a lot higher than I do yours let me tell you. And I've never read about him stooping so low as needing to resort to character assassination in order to win an argument.
| Quote: |
c) He knew what Saddam was doing but he supported it � that case his opinion ought not to count for much because he was in league with Saddam. |
What ever.
| Quote: |
6) Opposed taking down Saddam too. |
No, he didn't oppose the removal of Saddam from power. You really need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
| Quote: |
| So he favored letting Saddam ( a killer worse than Idi Amin ) go free, which shows that he was soft on Saddam. |
Not wanting to attack a country already on it's knees is not the same as wanting to let it's ruler go free. Really, there is a difference you know.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Hans von Sponeck
Opposed:
|
More of the same half truths and innuendo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="blade"][
| Quote: |
| Actually Halliday proposed that smart sanctions be used against Saddam. |
HE STILL WAS AGAINST THEM!
| Quote: |
Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator to Iraq, said during a visit to London this week: "The idea of smart sanctions is misleading and retrograde.
To end the suffering we have to rebuild the economy. Smart sanctions do not begin to do that." He said all economic sanctions should be lifted. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1332812/Iraq-'smart-sanctions'-derailed-by-Russia.html
| Quote: |
| The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues. |
http://www.counterpunch.org/iraqhostage.html
He opposed smart sanctions.
Case closed.
| Quote: |
| I believe he was against more against the continued bombing of preselected targets which had nothing to do with protecting the Kurds. |
The no fly zones protected the Kurds and he opposed them.
| Quote: |
| Actually he proposed smart sanctions, didn't you know this? |
he STILL opposed them. see above.
| Quote: |
Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator to Iraq, said during a visit to London this week: "The idea of smart sanctions is misleading and retrograde.
To end the suffering we have to rebuild the economy. Smart sanctions do not begin to do that." He said all economic sanctions should be lifted. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1332812/Iraq-'smart-sanctions'-derailed-by-Russia.html
| Quote: |
| People with an agenda would like to believe this, but to date nobody has been able to show how the alleged corruption of oil for food program adversely effected how it was ran. |
Well it shows Saddam had money . So it was Saddam that starved Iraqis.
We do know that Saddam withheld food and medical supplies from Iraqis.
Keep in mind that the food for oil didn't even start until 1996 or 1997.
[quote]
Well he didn't say anything while IT WAS GOING ON. look at the date it is 2004. Saddam was taken down in 2003. So he said something after Saddam was out of power.
| Quote: |
| I value his opinion a lot higher than I do yours let me tell you. And I've never read about him stooping so low as needing to resort to character assassination in order to win an argument. |
He was soft on Saddam and didn't say anything about the food for oil scandal while it was going on.With a record like his why ought his opinion be worth much at all?
| Quote: |
| No, he didn't oppose the removal of Saddam from power. You really need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations |
.
He opposed smart sanctions.
He opposed no fly zones and
He opposed the Iraq war. What does that mean?
| Quote: |
Denis Halliday
The former head of the U.N.'s humanitarian program in Iraq says an American invasion would be an international crime -- and would make the U.S. even less safe.
By Hadani Ditmars |
http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/03/20/halliday/
He also opposed no fly zones. I wonder how the Kurds felt about that?
Some human rights guy he turned out to be. 
| Quote: |
| Not wanting to attack a country already on it's knees is not the same as wanting to let it's ruler go free. Really, there is a difference you know. |
Freeing Saddam from sanctions and no fly zones is freeing Saddam.
Keeping Saddam under control saves lives remember Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait even after the first gulf war. But I guess that doesn't count.
Containing Saddam Hussein was justice. It saved lives.
| Quote: |
| More of the same half truths and innuendo. |
Uh no. You wanna have a debate on him too? Just say the word.
| Quote: |
| Speaking about the U.S.'s new so-called "smart sanctions," Hans von Sponeck has written, "What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen... The so-called 'new' sanction policy maintains the old bridgeheads of the current sanction regime: the oil escrow account remains with the UN, market-based foreign investment in Iraq will not be allowed and an oil-for-food program stays in the hands of the UN." |
http://rwor.org/a/v23/1130-39/1132/sponeck_iraq.htm
So it looks like he opposes smart sanctions.
| Quote: |
Von Sponeck says the no-fly patrols are themselves illegal.
"No Security Council resolution permits two foreign air forces to fly in Iraq," he says. "First we had a silent violation of international law. Since December of 1998, it has become a much more vociferous violation |
It looks like he opposes no fly zones.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/102400-02.htm
Case closed.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu May 22, 2008 7:55 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So anyway- what will be Ahmedinajad's penalty if Iran is found guilty of "incitement to International violence"? A spell in Woomerah? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
He opposed smart sanctions.
Case closed. |
Actually,
| Quote: |
This being the case, Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Baghdad who resigned in 1998 to protest against the sanctions, is now offering Washington and London an alternative to their murderous sanctions policy. He is proposing a 13-point plan which includes the resumption of UN monitoring of Iraq�s weapons program; imposition of[ �smart� sanctions on arms-producing states to prevent Iraq from obtaining prohibited weaponry; an end to the �demonization� of Iraq and its president; dialogue with Baghdad; lifting of economic sanctions; release of oil equipment to repair the country�s severely damaged oil industry; investment in the devastated economy; postponement of reparations payments which consume 30 percent of gross oil revenues; and an end to the daily Anglo-US bombing sorties which Iraq says have killed 300 of its civilians and wounded more. http://www.commondreams.org/views/070700-103.htm
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I believe he was against more against the continued bombing of preselected targets which had nothing to do with protecting the Kurds. |
The no fly zones protected the Kurds and he opposed them. |
Joo, your capacity for self delusion is breath taking and I wonder have you ever considered donating your brain to science after you die for further study?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually he proposed smart sanctions, didn't you know this? |
he STILL opposed them. see above. |
See above.
Joo, I take it your not the UK or Ireland because if you were you'd no what a sleezy piece of crap rag the telegraph is.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| People with an agenda would like to believe this, but to date nobody has been able to show how the alleged corruption of oil for food program adversely effected how it was ran. |
Well it shows Saddam had money . So it was Saddam that starved Iraqis.
We do know that Saddam withheld food and medical supplies from Iraqis. |
If that was the case then why were sanctions kept in place if they were allowing Saddam to use them as a weapon against his own people.
The sanctions gave every man woman and child about 180 dollars each to live on, so I want to know if you think you could support your family with a 180 dollars of food aid for an entire year?
| Quote: |
Well he didn't say anything while IT WAS GOING ON. look at the date it is 2004. Saddam was taken down in 2003. So he said something after Saddam was out of power. |
I don't know but maybe he felt that the all of the facts needed to be gathered before assigning blame? Innocent till proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="blade"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
He opposed smart sanctions.
Case closed. |
Actually he opposed them
| Quote: |
Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator to Iraq, said during a visit to London this week: "The idea of smart sanctions is misleading and retrograde.
To end the suffering we have to rebuild the economy. Smart sanctions do not begin to do that." He said all economic sanctions should be lifted. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1332812/Iraq-'smart-sanctions'-derailed-by-Russia.html
| Quote: |
| The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues. |
http://www.counterpunch.org/iraqhostage.html
He opposed smart sanctions.
You can see that again here!
| Quote: |
Published on Sunday, June 17, 2001 by Reuters
Ex-U.N. Officials Attack U.S.-British Plan on Iraq
by Hassan Hafidh
BAGHDAD - Two former U.N. officials Sunday condemned a U.S.-British proposal to revamp 11-year-old U.N. sanctions on Baghdad as a move which amounted to increased punishment for the Iraqi people.
Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who have both headed the U.N. humanitarian program or oil-for-food deal, told reporters the proposed ``smart'' sanctions were designed to extend an embargo imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Hans von Sponeck
Former top U.N. official Hans von Sponeck speaks during a news conference in Baghdad Sunday, June 17, 2001. Sponeck along with former U.N. officer Dennis Halliday called Sunday on an end to sanctions against Iraq, calling them "genocidal" and "a crime against humanity." Portrait of President Saddam Hussein is seen in the background. (AP Photo/Jassim Mohammed)
``They (smart sanctions) are intended to create an open-ended opportunity to sustain an embargo,'' said Halliday, who quit as head of the oil-for-food program in 1998 and has since been a vocal critic of the sanctions. |
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0617-03.htm
He opposed smart sanctions!
and worse than that he (they Van Spock too) opposed no fly zones!
Case closed.
| Quote: |
This being the case, Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Baghdad who resigned in 1998 to protest against the sanctions, is now offering Washington and London an alternative to their murderous sanctions policy. He is proposing a 13-point plan which includes the resumption of UN monitoring of Iraq�s weapons program; imposition of[ �smart� sanctions on arms-producing states to prevent Iraq from obtaining prohibited weaponry; an end to the �demonization� of Iraq and its president; dialogue with Baghdad; lifting of economic sanctions; release of oil equipment to repair the country�s severely damaged oil industry; investment in the devastated economy; postponement of reparations payments which consume 30 percent of gross oil revenues; and an end to the daily Anglo-US bombing sorties which Iraq says have killed 300 of its civilians and wounded more. http://www.commondreams.org/views/070700-103.htm
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I believe he was against more against the continued bombing of preselected targets which had nothing to do with protecting the Kurds. |
The no fly zones protected the Kurds and he opposed them. |
Joo, your capacity for self delusion is breath taking and I wonder have you ever considered donating your brain to science after you die for further study?
No but since Haliday and Van Spock both opposed smart sanctions and no fly zones and you continue to claim other wise about the smart sanctions while you agree with them about the no fly zones which protected the Kurds from being slaughtered I am considering showing you to science as virulent form of anti American causing disinformation bacteria who takes the side of anti US dictators .
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually he proposed smart sanctions, didn't you know this? |
he STILL opposed them. see above. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| Joo, I take it your not the UK or Ireland because if you were you'd no what a sleezy piece of crap rag the telegraph is. |
A lot better than "progressive" anti US dictator apolgizing sources that the left loves to use.
| Quote: |
If that was the case then why were sanctions kept in place if they were allowing Saddam to use them as a weapon against his own people.
The sanctions gave every man woman and child about 180 dollars each to live on, so I want to know if you think you could support your family with a 180 dollars of food aid for an entire year? |
Free of sanctions Saddam would rearm and then threaten other nations.
Saddam continued to sponser terror and threaten other nations.
By the way answer this : What would a free Saddam do to the Kurds?
Futhermore you forget that oil for food did not even start until 1996 or 1997 cause Saddam would not go along with it!
[
| Quote: |
| I don't know but maybe he felt that the all of the facts needed to be gathered before assigning blame? Innocent till proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent. |
But we do know that Dennis Haliday said nothing about food for oil while it was going on. Which means either 1) He didn't know. In that case he wasn't up on what was going on. Or that 2) he did know but said nothing which would mean he wasn't doing his job. Or 3) that he was complicit with Saddam.
In either case Dennis Haliday has a lot to answer for and his opinions are suspect.
| Quote: |
How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals
The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes. John Sweeney, in a TV documentary to be shown tonight, says the figures are bogus. Here he reports from Iraq on his findings
Terrorism crisis - Observer special
Observer Worldview
John Sweeney
The Observer, Sunday June 23 2002 Article history � Contact us Contact usClose Report errors or inaccuracies: [email protected]
Letters for publication should be sent to: [email protected]
If you need help using the site: [email protected]
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332
This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 23 2002 . It was last updated at 02:52 on June 23 2002. The witness against the government of Iraq walked stiffly into the room, metal callipers buckled to heavy medical shoes. They had tortured her two years ago. She is now four.
Her father had been suspected of involvement in a plot to kill Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son, Uday. He fled to the north of Iraq, but the secret police, the mukhabarat, came for his wife, still in Baghdad, and tortured her. When she wouldn't break, they tortured 'Anna' in front of her.
Her father, 'Ali', is a thick-set Iraqi who worked in Saddam's privileged inner circle. He described what they did to her: 'They had a wooden stick. They would squeeze her feet and ask "Has Daddy called you?" - she understood - "Does Daddy contact you?"'
She is a victim of Saddam's brutality, proof that he is prepared to dispense violence against even his country's children. By a cruel irony, her father is also witness to Saddam's efforts to portray those same children as victims of Western sanctions, which he claims have cost hundreds of thousands of young lives.
Osama bin Laden justified the 11 September attack on America by referring to a million dead Iraqi children - killed by sanctions. But there is a belief among many Iraqis that Saddam is inventing the numbers.
Ali, outraged that Saddam's torturers may have crippled his daughter for life, spoke openly about how the regime's propaganda has faked mass baby funerals - 'evidence' of the 7,000 children under five the regime claims are being killed each month by sanctions.
Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages - 'three days', 'four days', written usefully for the English-speaking media - are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of official mourners.
There is only one problem. Because there are not enough dead babies around, the regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, in the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda.
The taxi drivers do what they are told - as everybody does in Saddam's Iraq - to their evident disgust. Before Ali defected to the north, one friend of his, a taxi driver, explained how it worked: 'I went to Najaf [a town 100 miles south of Baghdad] a couple of days ago. I brought back two bodies of children for one of the mass funerals. The smell was very strong.'
Ali continued: 'The taxi driver didn't know how long they'd been in freezers, perhaps six or seven months. The drivers would collect them from the regions and would be informed of when a mass funeral was arranged so they would be ready. Certainly, they would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for the mass processions.'
A second, Western source, went to visit visited a Baghdad hospital and, when the official Iraqi minder was absent, was taken to the mortuary. There, a doctor showed the source a number of dead babies, lying stacked in the mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.
Anna was the youngest witness to child torture by the Iraqi government in an investigation, The Mother of All Ironies, to be broadcast by BBC2's Correspondent today. It found six other adult witnesses in the Kurdish safe haven in the north - the only part of Iraq where people are free to speak.
The most chilling witness was one of Saddam's torturers, who was captured spying against the Kurds this year. 'Kamal' told us: 'They would bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied, and would start off with simple methods of torture, such as cigarette burns. Then they started using other methods of torture, more serious ones.
'They would tell the father that they'd slaughter his son, and they'd bring a bayonet out, and if the parents didn't confess they'd kill the child. 'The interrogator has the right to kill the child, or perform any other butchery, whatever's necessary.' And then Kamal chuckled.
It is an absolute of the government of Iraq - and others - that thousands of Iraqi children are dying every month because of sanctions. We managed to get a cameraman to accompany a fact-finding trip into Iraq this year by the Great Britain-Iraq Society, led by its chairman, Labour MP George Galloway.
At the start of the trip Galloway, in Iraq for the ninth time in two-and-a-half years, said: 'Every six minutes an Iraqi child will have died under the embargo. That's every six minutes of every day, of every night, every year for 12 years.'
In 1999 Unicef, in co-operation with the Iraqi government, made a retrospective projection of 500,000 excess child deaths in the 1990s. The projection is open to question. It was based on data from within a regime that tortures children with impunity. All but one of the researchers used by Unicef were employees of the Ministry of Health, according to the Lancet.
The dead babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium weapons. While no one should underestimate the lethality of these weapons and the stupidity of the US military machine, the claim does not make radiological sense. According to Dr Nick Plowman, head of clinical oncology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, the claim 'is ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman.
Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people.
� John Sweeney's report will be shown in Correspondent on BBC2 at 7.15pm today
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2056376.stm
#
| Quote: |
October 1994: Iraq again masses troops, including two divisions of Republican Guards, along the Kuwaiti border. Under what becomes known as Operation Vigilant Warrior, the United States responds by deploying a heavy brigade from the 24th Infantry Division, an aircraft carrier and Air Force strike fighters into the region.
#
September 1995: Detecting signs of another Iraqi muster, the United States launches Operation Vigilant Sentinel, again pouring thousands of troops into Kuwait and extending an aircraft carrier�s tour in the gulf. |
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010228b.htm
Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait.
and he continued to support terror.
| Quote: |
Saddam's Terror Links
March 24, 2008; Page A14
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood. |
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
and the US was wrong to do anything to contain Saddam's Iraq?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
