[Hermit 1] In contravention of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that this would eventually lead to revolution. Instead about 1 million of the children of Iraq have died of these diseases.
[Joe Dees 2] You sound like we are passing out the smallpox blankets; pure unadulterated Bullus Shittus of the rankest Hermitian grade.
[Hermit 3] I note you don't read links. Google Search Term "bomb iraq water cholera nagy"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/index_iraq.html <- Superb, a lot of excellent links
[Hermit 3] I have previously posted the links to the DOD sites which contain the referenced declassified documents which show intent. I think the onus is now on you to do what you have not yet attempted and show why your assertion that this is "Bullus Shittus" is not just an angry wail of denial.
[Hermit 3] Here is a sample document providing all the required data. Respond to it.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 4] We did degrade their water supplies, but we didn't actively infect the people (as the analogy to passing out smallpox blankets would have indicated), although we did, and had good reason to, suspect that nature would do that for us, in the absence of the good sense by the Iraqi population to boil their drinking water prior to consuming it. I wonder if Saddam Hussein even tried to tell his people to boil their drinking water, and if not, if he refused to do so because he was all too willing to have some of them die in order to exploit a propaganda point. I wish the US had not taken this action, but instead had had the good sense to finish the job of ousting Saddam during the Gulf War. We need to finish it now, for everyone's benefit; ours, the neigboring countries in the region, and the population of Iraq.
[Hermit 5] When an environment contains sufficient vectors it is almost impossible to prevent infection. That was why the US expected this result. In any case, as the US predicted, most Iraqi have difficulty obtaining water at all. In addition, again as predicted, they don't have the ability to boil their water as the electricity infrastructure was also destroyed (read the US reports). Iraq was an industrialized electrified society, so no, most Iraqis don't have fuel powered stoves that could use fuel if they could get it. Their infrastructure was so badly damaged that making new stoves is not a reality and even if they could, most Iraqi couldn't buy them. Most Iraqi are broke or close to it.
[Joe Dees 6] They couldn't build fires? Puh-LEEEZE!
[Hermit 7] You really don't think before you speak, do you? Or been involved in an aid effort. Lets see. 25 million people. 2-5 gallons of water per person per day (emergency minimum levels). Lets say 2 gallons. Needs to be boiled for at least 5 minutes to kill the cholera pathogen. To bring a liter of water to the boil requires a kilogram of wood. So 50 million kilograms of wood per day. Or if you prefer 50,000 tons a day. Also about 50'000 cords of wood. For 10 years 500'000 tons. A goodly forest will yield up to 2 tons an acre a year. So 250'000 acres of forest are needed to make these fires you propose. Iraq has a total area of 108 million acres. Unfortunately most of this is not suitable for forests. In fact they had only 205'000 acres of forest before the gulf war. And their yields were about a third of that. So even were they to completely denude the country, they could not provide enough fuel. And of course, forestry is expensive. In Peru, during a cholera epidemic, it was estimated that 40% of avera
ge income was spent on fuel. Peru is porr. Yet not so poor as Iraq.
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html http://www.forestry.state.al.us/publication/FORESTS,%20AIR%20AND%20WATER.PDF
http://www.forestworld.com/public/country/Iraq/Iraq_fl.html
[Hermit 7] This is in any case yet another classic example of "blame the victim." They didn't have this problem untilo the US attacked, destroyed, removed, and rendered 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." Well done, America. We have the DIA statement that this was caused by the US, "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." Which is what I said.
[Hermit 5] So:The internal documents show that the US was fully aware of the probable consequences
The internal documents show that the US took the illegal actions of destroying civilian infrastructure any way.
The internal documents show that the US deliberately prevented a solution to the subsequent disaster.
The external documents show that the result has been the death of over a million children.
[Joe Dees 6] The documents show that Saddam himself did not distribute either potable water or medical supplies, and apparently did not instruct his own people to boil their water, successfully hoping that the resutant deaths would influence people like Hermit into embracing the satrap Saddam.
[Hermit 7] The DIA report of October 1991, showed clearly that Iraq could not provide sufficient water. Again: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."
[Hermit 7] Blaming the victim doesn't work unless you reject the facts. That is what is called denial.
[Hermit 5] Joe Dees raised a strawman and then tried to say that they US didn't create the diseases, so the deaths from them are not the US' responsibility even though the US planned for this result, and implemented those plans.
[Joe Dees 6] It crerated conditions where if basic and easily implementable precautions, such as boiling drinking water, were not implemented, then disease could result.
[Hermit 7] And shown above is why Joe's desperate defense of his strawman must failed. But the thing Joe is missing is that even if his strawman were provided with a steel skeleton, it would have to fail. Because the argument is not that Iraq could maybe have avoided it, it is that:In contravention of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that this would eventually lead to revolution. Instead about 1 million of the children of Iraq have died of these diseases.
[Hermit 5] I would suggest that far from disproving "In contravention of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that this would eventually lead to revolution.
[Joe Dees 6] The US disseminated nothing. You have not shown that a single bacterium or virus was seeded into Iraq by the US. If you can provide such proof, then put it up; otherwise shut up concerning your egregious, outrageos, hysterical and faalcious claims that the US dropped disease pathogens upon the Iraqi people. Disminative biowarfare is the object of Iraqi weapons programs.
[Hermit 7] His first strawman having failed, Joe raises a new one. Notice that my original statement was that "the United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq" not that the US "seeded Iraq". As this attempt to mislead is so blatant and so transparent that a fourth grader can see through it, I will not address it further.
[Hermit 5] Instead about 1 million of the children of Iraq have died of these diseases." the only reasonable conclusion is that my assertion was well founded and that it is Joe Dees who is speaking "pure unadulterated Bullus Shittus of the rankest Deesian grade."
[Joe Dees 6] And what was that assertion? That the US had taken disseminative active action to intentionally infect the Iraqi people? That one has not been grounded at all, by any evidence whatsoever.
[Hermit 7] Repeating your strawman fallacy does not make it truer, Joe. As we have seen the action taken by the US was expected to cause disease and lead to its proliferation. It was predictable. The US predicted it. And did it. And as predicted, it has. And such action is illegal.
[Hermit 5] In conclusion, Joe Dees' additional assertion that "We need to finish [finish the job of ousting Saddam] now, for everyone's benefit; ours, the neigboring countries in the region, and the population of Iraq" is as spurious, unfounded and self interested a delusion as ever raged, and I challenge Joe Dees to attempt to support it with particular reference to the Kurds and neighbors of Iraq. He need not support the US interest. That is self-evident.
[Joe Dees 6] The Kurds are only surviving (as are the Shiites) because the coalition continues to enforce a no-fly zone that prevents Saddam Hussein from continuing to perpetrate his genocidal depredations,, including chemical warfare attacks, upon them.
[Hermit 7] Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies... Ask any Kurd. Yet Turkey is our ally.
[Hermit 7] "By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM (the UN inspections body) or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons programme was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons programme was completely eliminated. The long range ballistic missile programme was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say [it is] zero." -- Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq for five years, from an essay by John Pilger (Guardian 2000-04-03)
[Joe Dees 6] Kuwait remains as a sovereign nation only because the coalition expelled Saddam Hussein's annexing force from their land, an action which deterred saddam from his actual goal, an invasion of Saudi arabia and conquest of the entire Arabian Peninsula.
[Hermit 7] The US agreed to the attack on Kuwait. Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. From the translation of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Kuwait is frequently - and correctly - described as a royal kleptocracy - and so totalitarian that many ordinary citizens of Kuwait cheered when Iraq's armies paraded in their streets. In March 2002, Iraqi presidential envoy, Izzat Ibrahim, and the Kuwaiti foreign minister, Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, shook hands and voiced their "total rejection of any attack on Iraq." (Guardian, 2002-03-29) Kuwait has told the US that her territ
ory may not be used, or over flown in an attack. What is wrong with this picture?
[Hermit 7] The U.S. supports Saudi Arabia - despite the fact that it is fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq. Yet even Saudi Arabia says, "We are against any attack on Iraq because we believe it is not needed, especially now Iraq is moving to implement United Nations resolutions. For the government of Iraq, the leadership of Iraq, any change that happens there has to come from the Iraqi people." Prince Saud al-Faisal (Guardian 2002-08-09)
[Joe Dees 6] Saddam has attacked Israel with SCUD missiles, is paying Palestinian suicide bombers a 25k bounty per to slaughter Israeli children, is training a force in Baghdad named the Jerusalem army, tasked with the purpose of 'liberating' that city, and has threatened to use nukes, which he is activle attempting to obtain, upon both the US and Israel.
[Hermit 7] Worth noting that no Arab nation or coalition can present a credible threat to Israel. That included Iraq at the height of its military strength. Iraq knew it and so did not attack Israel until it was under attack by the US and had few options other than to respond with what it had while it could. And the utter ineffectiveness of those attacks emphasis my point. What makes you imagine that the strategic playoff will be different this time?
[Hermit 7] Of course, there will be at least one difference. Last time, Israel was prevented by responding by the US. This time Israel is lead by a murderous fanatic who has said that any attack on Israel will be answered with force. Interesting. An attack on Iraq is quite likely to be the only way to provoke that which you claim to be wanting to prevent.
[Hermit 7] By the way, with only 70 suicide bombings in Israel to date the strategy appears to be devoid of merit as a motivator. What is wrong, do the Palestinians value themselves more than this? Do you think that the bombings would increase if he upped the ante? Or do you think that it is perhaps a ploy to persuade other states to identify Iraq with the Palestinian cause? If not, why not? And why is the strategy wrong?
[Hermit 7] And even the Israelis are not in agreement with you. Some still have an ethical stance which precludes using genocide of an instrument of war. Even when the target are only Palestinians. "Surely the extermination of Jews in gas chambers is not comparable to the slow death inflicted in Iraqi children by deprivation. But from another angle the latter is even more despicable. The genocide against Jews was perpetrated in the greatest secret and without the blessing of the "civilized world". The crimes against Iraqi civilians are committed in full day-light, with the blessing of the ruling "civilized nations" and with the tacit support of the educated classes in these nations. Those who keep silent and are legally able to speak up, are morally accomplices to this crime." -- Elias Davidsson, Musician and a Palestinian Jew, 4/16/1999 posted in the open forum of www.arabamerican.com
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26082>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT