Heh!?!

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: EDIT: Seems a far cry from the "millions" claimed by "some" people. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The 'millions' count those dead due to the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Among the goods that Iraq can't import is choride - because it is easy to transform to a deadly gas. However it is also a vital component in water-purification, and as a result of the sanction water-borne diseases increased dramaticly.

Originally posted by Radek: To Ronn_Bman. You are repeating the standard propaganda about Saddam not allowing his people to feed. If you want to know the reality then check, for example pages of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck (http://www.notinournames.org). Note: D. Halliday was the first UN administrator of the "Oil for Food" programme. H. von Sponeck was the second UN administrator of the same programme. Therefore, both D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck are people that know what are they speaking about. Both of them abdicated after finding out what the programme really is.

Errr Radek, could you possibly have picked a more biased and less likely to be objective sourceof news? I hardly think so.

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: EDIT: Seems a far cry from the "millions" claimed by "some" people. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The 'millions' count those dead due to the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Among the goods that Iraq can't import is choride - because it is easy to transform to a deadly gas. However it is also a vital component in water-purification, and as a result of the sanction water-borne diseases increased dramaticly.[/QUOTE]Can you give me a link or something to where these statistics are being compiled? I tried finding it on my sources and at the UN sites but no one seems to be actually tracking the numbers you are talking about.

I am sure you blame the deaths if any on the US and UN sanctions...but how is it that Saddam has money enough to maintain his military and he is still buying equipment from russia...wouldnt it be better to blame the guy who is misappropriating the money?

[ 01-20-2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: font color="#ffccff">Can you give me a link or something to where these statistics are being compiled? I tried finding it on my sources and at the UN sites but no one seems to be actually tracking the numbers you are talking about. I am sure you blame the deaths if any on the US and UN sanctions...but how is it that Saddam has money enough to maintain his military and he is still buying equipment from russia...wouldnt it be better to blame the guy who is misappropriating the money?

The problem I have with the sanction is that the hit the wrong people (and as the example with chorine shows, Iraq can't buy what it needs to purify water) - and as you said, Saddam can still get hold of some weaponry. But Iraq's armed forces have been scaled down from 1.000.000+ at the time of the Gulf War to around 350.000(?) today. Secondly - Iraq (and Saddam) does not control what the money from the oil-for-food program is used for. A lot of it was used to pay war-reparations to Kuwait. So Iraq smuggles oil and buys what it feels it need for the money.

And I sure Saddam can think of a very good reason to maintain his military - the forign 'horde' standing on the border

P.S. Got the number (ca. 1.5 million) from a very reliable radio-program - so I don't have a written scource.

P.P.S. What weapons from Russia??

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: P.S. Got the number (ca. 1.5 million) from a very reliable radio-program - so I don't have a written scource. Ok fair enough, it happens to me on occasion too. When I count Gulf War casualties I only count the people harmed in the actual war itself, those killed or hurt after are a seperate issue to me. P.P.S. What weapons from Russia?? If Im not mistaken, the Scud is a soviet make. the Primary weapons for his soldiers are Ak-74's and 47's both of Soviet make, His tanks, are T-72's and some older refits of T-60 series tanks. His RPG's are soviet make and all his fighter Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft weaponry are of soviet and chinese make. Most of his equipment is russian.

[Night Stalker]

Magik is correct on the Iraqi military make up. The majority of equipment is Soviet, or Chinese modified Soviet. A small bit is French.

[Shaide]

Ar-Cuinin you are right. The sanction to irak is wrong, like other countries.
Why Cuba or Irak has a sanction?. Why Sudafrica not?, They attacked angolia, and the united states didnt do anything. They say that Irak has destruccion massive weapons (The inspectors havent found any), but USA have this weapons too. Well Inspectors have found weapons, well it's true if other country say that they will attack, you must defend.
Irak its the country who get the money for themself, for education, and others. And they dont like USA, and they sell the oil more expensive, the oil is them, they can sell more expensive to USA if they want to. USA sell weapons to other countries more expensive to get more money, and any country attack them.
What's wrong then? Usa is in crisis before 11 of september, and if they'll get the irak's oil, then they will be better. Moreover in summer 2001 the United States of America said that they will attack to Afganistan and irak, but they havent any reasons to attack them, and two month more late was the 11 of September... what does mean? I dont know...
I must say one more thing...
Do you remember 1969? Usa wanted to attack Cuba. USA did a plan, they would attack some places in Miami, they would destroy any US airplanes when this planes would fly on Cuba, and they would say that Cuban attacked in first time, the world would say: Cuba is guilty, and they would attack this country with world help.
Moreover in the 19th century, USA blowed up an USA's ship near Cuban's beach, for steal this island to us (Spain) and they said that we attacked United States of America, but Cuban wanted to be free, without Spain and USA.
What is your opinion?

SHAIDE

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: Moreover in the 19th century, USA blowed up an USA's ship near Cuban's beach, for steal this island to us (Spain) and they said that we attacked United States of America, but Cuban wanted to be free, without Spain and USA. What is your opinion? SHAIDE

Not true. Although for decades the sinking of the Maine was thought to have been due to attack, later evidence determined it was caused by an explosion in the ammunition storage chamber, which set off a chain reaction thus destroying the Maine.

It wasn't purposely destroyed to give cause in Cuba and wasn't needed as a cause. Dead American's and threatened economic interests had already provided cause.

I don't claim the US was being completely altruistic in helping Cuba revolt against Spain, but the Cubans were freed of Spanish rule as they hoped, and did benefit under US administration, and were given their freedom from the US without revolution.

EDIT - In 1976, Adm. Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy mounted yet another investigation into the cause of the Maine disaster. His team of experts found that the ship's demise was self-inflicted--likely the result of a coal bunker fire. There are those, however, who still maintain that an external blast was to blame. Some people, it seems, just won't let you forget the Maine.

Source

[ 01-21-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: What's wrong then? Usa is in crisis before 11 of september, and if they'll get the irak's oil, then they will be better. Moreover in summer 2001 the United States of America said that they will attack to Afganistan and irak, but they havent any reasons to attack them, and two month more late was the 11 of September... what does mean? I dont know...

The US was in crisis before September 11th? That's weird, I live in the US, and I didn't hear about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The economy was slumping headed to recession. That certainly isn't good news, but it is far from a crisis. The economy is cyclic. It has ups followed by downs and that's just the way it works, so crisis? Not hardly.

How will the US "be better", in the sense of your crisis statement, after an Iraqi war? We won't get their oil unless we buy it. Even if US troops march down the streets of Bhagdad we won't get to keep any of their oil.

Could you provide links to the US threats against Afghanistan prior to September 11th? I don't remember any, and Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, so what would the purpose have been?

As far as Iraq, I remember that being talked about in the Spring, but guess what? Saddam had been in violation of UN sanctions for a decade, so it shouldn't be too surprising. Maybe you should be upset with him for not feeding his people? He's a dictator, so it's his country. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As to the sanctions starving people, see my earlier post.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Shaide: Why Sudafrica not?, They attacked angolia, and the united states didnt do anything. I assume you are talking about South Africa. The US led the boycott of South Africa during the 70's and 80's. We were instrumental in having aparthied fall. Since then, South Africa has lived at peace with it's neighbors. It's Government is now a majority run government. Why on earth would we still impose sanctions against South Africa? they did everything they were supposed to! They say that Irak has destruccion massive weapons (The inspectors havent found any), but USA have this weapons too. Well Inspectors have found weapons, well it's true if other country say that they will attack, you must defend. While it's true that we have those weapons too, they were created to stop Germany and Japan during WW2. Afterward they were the mainstay in the defense of Europe from a precieved threat from the former Soviet Union. Irak its the country who get the money for themself, for education, and others. And they dont like USA, and they sell the oil more expensive, the oil is them, they can sell more expensive to USA if they want to. USA sell weapons to other countries more expensive to get more money, and any country attack them. What's wrong then? Usa is in crisis before 11 of september, and if they'll get the irak's oil, then they will be better. Moreover in summer 2001 the United States of America said that they will attack to Afganistan and irak, but they havent any reasons to attack them, and two month more late was the 11 of September... what does mean? I dont know... I don't know what that means either. If you are going to spout accusations against the US, then back them up with some sort of proof! Where has it ever been said that the US was looking for a reason to attack Afghanistan or Iraq in the summer of 2001? As far as oil goes, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 was oil. They accused Kuwait of drilling at an angle from Kuwait over into Iraq and stealing Iraq's oil. Besides, wouldn't it be cheaper for us to cut a deal with Saddam and let him sell his oil, than to get a bunch of people killed and spend billions of dollars to invade Iraq. Sorry, your arguement doesn't wash. I suggest that you look up Timber loftus' posted statement about US interest in oil. I'll try and find the link for you. I must say one more thing... Do you remember 1969? Usa wanted to attack Cuba. USA did a plan, they would attack some places in Miami, they would destroy any US airplanes when this planes would fly on Cuba, and they would say that Cuban attacked in first time, the world would say: Cuba is guilty, and they would attack this country with world help. Moreover in the 19th century, USA blowed up an USA's ship near Cuban's beach, for steal this island to us (Spain) and they said that we attacked United States of America, but Cuban wanted to be free, without Spain and USA. What is your opinion? I'll let Ronn_Bonn's statement stand on this one. Except to say that you and I weren't around then to know what really happened. What is the purpose in talking about something that happened over a hundred years ago and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That's kind of the same logic we all saw in Bosnia and Kosovo. You ancestors slaughtered my ancestors four hundred years ago, so I hate you. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Sir Taliesin SHAIDE