Gazi George

[taranaki]

Originally posted by sarujin


But yeah, of course america's soliders are incompotent as they didn't find WMD's the second they crossed the border. They are only just begining to seriously search for them. The rest of the time the've been far to busy fighting and protecting people.

sarujin

America's soldiers are not incompetent for not finding thsat which doesn't exist.Saddam,or his deputies,would have ordered them to be used if they existed.
U.S. troops have proven to be very competent at invading,but utterly useless at peacekeeping.Total anarchy has replaced the rule of law,the mood in Iraq is turning against America,and if the U.S.doesn't get its act together quickly,the 'liberation' will be seen as an 'occupation'.

[texan]

Originally posted by taranaki
America's soldiers are not incompetent for not finding thsat which doesn't exist.Saddam,or his deputies,would have ordered them to be used if they existed.

Just to mention this one last time, this is your assumption. Several arguments have been posed from various sources, including the earlier example from Hanz Blix, that describe the logic in NOT using them.

Originally posted by taranaki

U.S. troops have proven to be very competent at invading,but utterly useless at peacekeeping.Total anarchy has replaced the rule of law,the mood in Iraq is turning against America,and if the U.S.doesn't get its act together quickly,the 'liberation' will be seen as an 'occupation'.

Yes, just as we were incapable of peacekeeping in Kosovo. Just as we were incapable of providing a safe haven in northern Iraq for Kurds. Just as we were unable to provide peace to Kuwait, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy... shall we dig up the outcome of every war in US history?

In a huge power vacuum such as there currently is in Iraq, you have to give the military more than 1 week to provide structure. I honestly don't understand your argument, can you give any example in history when a country's government has been toppled for any reason and there wasn't a short term ensuing anarchy?

If things still look like this in three months, then you can argue about our inablity to provide peace to the people of Iraq until you're blue in the face. And I'll join right in with you, but honestly, criticism after one week when we haven't even stopped all the shooting yet?

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan


but honestly, criticism after one week when we haven't even stopped all the shooting yet?

I've been criticising this war from day one.It was unneccesary,immoral,and the alleged reasons for conducting it have thus far proven to be a crock.Show me some WMD,show me a better government,put in place by Iraqis for the benefit of Iraqis,with no White House interference,show me a definitive link with the WTC bombings,and then maybe I'll shut up.Until then,Mr Bush has committed a grave error of judgement IMO.

[texan]

Originally posted by taranaki
I've been criticising this war from day one.It was unneccesary,immoral,and the alleged reasons for conducting it have thus far proven to be a crock.Show me some WMD,show me a better government,put in place by Iraqis for the benefit of Iraqis,with no White House interference,show me a definitive link with the WTC bombings,and then maybe I'll shut up.Until then,Mr Bush has committed a grave error of judgement IMO.

Well that's all fine and good, and I can understand your anger. But I thought this forum was for debate and discussion, not taking pot shots at a situation when you know very well there is no way in the world that anyone could walk in there and instantly make everything better. There is going to be a period of lawlessness, followed by a cooling down period and then finally we'll get to the heart of the matter of restructuring.

As much as you hate this war, I do hope you realize the potential of the current situation. For the first time in over a decade the people of Iraq might actually have a future. They'll have far greater potential for personal advancement, education and exercising civil liberties than at any time in recent history.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan




As much as you hate this war, I do hope you realize the potential of the current situation.

Indeed I do.The citizens of Basra enjoy an abnormally high rate of cancer already,thanks to the depleted uranium shells used in the last Gulf War.Add the latest pile of nuclear waste scattered across the landscape,and you've got really grim health prospects for a large number of those that you 'liberated'. Couple that with enormous amounts of unexploded ordinance,a huge number of Iraqi small arms unaccounted for,and a massive amount of infrastructure to be rebuilt,let's not kid anyone that this is automatically going to be a 'happy ever after' tale.

[texan]

There you go again. Assumption after assumption, pot shot after pot shot, you're on quite a roll here.

How do you know that any cases of cancer there are caused by DU? Did you know that extensive cleanup efforts of DU ammunition were undertaken by the coalition after Desert Storm? And finally, whom is to blame for the use of tank killing ammunition? The UN for having ordered such use of force, or Iraq for invading it's neighbor? At worst, this is what people call the horror of war, which Iraq's government willfully called upon itself. I feel badly for anyone in the country that must suffer this, and I will try my best to put an end to it. This is what we are doing now.

And on to the "unexploded ordinance", how much exactly of that is there, and who left it? How likely is any of it to dissuade the argument at hand; that Iraq has more potential now for it's own well being than in the last 35 years of Baath party rule?

And what about Iraqi small arms? Your point, besides the fact the there are *gasp* guns in the hands of the populace?

And I'm not kidding anyone. I didn't claim this would be easy or an automatically fruitful endeavor. What I stated was that the potential of the situation is currently greater for the Iraqi people to further themselves than at any time in Hussein's rule. And I still hold that to be true, which is something you have yet to address directly. of course there are problems. Of course there is and will continue to be fallout from the two major conflicts which either America or the world at large has had in Iraq, but how different are these from the fallout of Hussein's viscously ruthless military state?

So you go ahead and be relentlessly pessimistic, I'll continue to be cautiously optimistic. Why? Because disagreeing with this war is different from being pro-Saddam. Because there are few people in this world who would challenge the fact that the Baath Party's rule in Iraq was a horribly oppresive, outright immoral, unjust and in need of replacement. Because I am an American and am convinced this is ultimately the right thing to do, however unfortunate the situation has become. And because being American affords me the right to speak my mind, assist in the situation, and ultimately be held responsible for the outcome.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan
There you go again. Assumption after assumption, pot shot after pot shot, you're on quite a roll here.

How do you know that any cases of cancer there are caused by DU? Did you know that extensive cleanup efforts of DU ammunition were undertaken by the coalition after Desert Storm? And finally, whom is to blame for the use of tank killing ammunition?

Easy answer,the country that thinks that such toxic weapons are acceptable.

And on to the "unexploded ordinance", how much exactly of that is there, and who left it?

heres one estimate of another favourite 'dirty weapon'

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/10006

And what about Iraqi small arms? Your point, besides the fact the there are *gasp* guns in the hands of the populace?

Most Western countries recognise the unacceptable downside of handguns,semi-automatics,sniper rifles and machine guns and grenades in civilian hands.Your failure to accept that this is undesirable reflects your nationality.Don't be surprised when these weapons are turned against the 'liberators'.

So you go ahead and be relentlessly pessimistic, I'll continue to be cautiously optimistic. Why? Because disagreeing with this war is different from being pro-Saddam. Because there are few people in this world who would challenge the fact that the Baath Party's rule in Iraq was a horribly oppresive, outright immoral, unjust and in need of replacement. Because I am an American and am convinced this is ultimately the right thing to do, however unfortunate the situation has become. And because being American affords me the right to speak my mind, assist in the situation, and ultimately be held responsible for the outcome.

You are entitled to believe whatever Mr Bush tells you,and repeat it as often as you like if that suits you.But you will never be held responsible for his decisisions.The blame for this mess lies entirely with him.And as long as he is President,I see no reason to be optimistic.

[texan]

Originally posted by taranaki
Easy answer,the country that thinks that such toxic weapons are acceptable.

For the most part I agree with that entirely. Care to share your input on the other two questions that were in that previous paragraph too, or are we going to gloss those over? Oh BTW, toxic is a term that can be applied to just about any weapon. Lead bullets are extremely toxic to humans in the right environment, should we stop using those too?

heres one estimate of another favourite 'dirty weapon'

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/10006

So of course we're the bad guys again. What about the thousands of land mines and UXO setup or fired by Iraq over the last 20 years? What about Hussein's complete lack of programs for clearing his own country of these munitions, scattered about in two wars of his own making might I add? How is that OK, but when the UN, US and other allies at least have programs (where possible in the country) to clean up these muntions it's not? And lastly, how does this ensure years of major problems to come when it is now, finally, within everyone's power to rid Iraq of mines and UXO?

Most Western countries recognise the unacceptable downside of handguns,semi-automatics,sniper rifles and machine guns and grenades in civilian hands.Your failure to accept that this is undesirable reflects your nationality.Don't be surprised when these weapons are turned against the 'liberators'.

If Iraq is expected to be able to defend itself when we leave, I'm not sure what your alternative would be. If they are expected to police themselves in the coming days, I'm not sure what your alternative would be. When I asked the question I expected that there would be more logic behind your answer than my being American as the only reason I don't see a problem. Again... what is the problem with the citizenry being armed? What are the "unacceptable downsides" besides their potential for improper use, and how are you so confident they will be used against us? And how does the possibility of using them against us (which is unlikely to happen) forever cast a shadow over Iraq's potential future? I completely fail to see how this furthers your argument.

You are entitled to believe whatever Mr Bush tells you,and repeat it as often as you like if that suits you.But you will never be held responsible for his decisisions.The blame for this mess lies entirely with him.And as long as he is President,I see no reason to be optimistic..

First off, don't write off my thinking as the work of someone else. I believe I've thus far logically explained every position I have put forth in this forum, so why denigrate me? That was beneath you.

Also, I will absolutely and rightly be held responsible for what our government does. To what level you hold me responsible is open for debate, but clearly our system of government demands some blame rest on the population for mistakes made by our leadership. This logic is simple and undeniable; in a true democracy the people are the most responsible in any case where decisions are being made with their full knowledge and that will have such far reaching affects. They (we) are ultimately the ones most equipped to stop such actions.


Finally, I still have not seen the overwhelming evidence showing that this takeover of Iraq is doomed to failure. You speak of unexploded ammunitions, guns in the hands of the populace, and ecological problems as though they make life in Iraq impossible to improve. I don't see that as being the case, since virtually every post-war country has had to deal with these same problems and most have gotten through them alright. You say that there's a great deal of infrastructure to rebuild, and that's obviously true, what do you think the US has OK'd 80 billion dollars for? But again, how does that further your defeatist argument? Finally, you speak of our incompetent peacekeeping efforts when you know full well that there's no way anyone can bring order to a country that size within a week's time (I suspect that's why you wisely dropped that point from the debate). It makes much more sense to me that the country is potentially better off now than before with Hussein's regime. Their infrastructure was largely non-existent, they had the same land mine and UXO problem (which was only being worked on by the UN), they had plenty of ecological problems and along with that a very poorly setup medical system. I could go on, but there's no need. The point is that now we have the ability to truly change these things, and you can't do anything but repeatedly bring them up?

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan

For the most part I agree with that entirely. Care to share your input on the other two questions that were in that previous paragraph too, or are we going to gloss those over?

Well,as to DU and cancer,the Iraqis pressed the UN to hold an enquiry into its effects as they claimed it was causing massive increases in the incidence of birth defects and leukaemia.The request was vetoed after intense lobbying by the U.S. Why would the U.S.want to stifle the information if they knew it to be untrue?

http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html

you might choose to discount that link because it originates from an Iraqi government official,so I'll add another eye-witness report from a British journalist.I feel that the fact that it was written in 2001 when there was less public antagonism towards the Iraqi regime gives it a greater degree of integrity than wartime reporting that inevitably gets skewed by the disinformation and propaganda process.

The Independent, Saturday 1 December.
A chamber of horrors so close to the 'Garden of Eden'
In Foreign Parts in Basra, Southern Iraq
Andy Kershaw
01 December 2001
I thought I had a strong stomach - toughened by the minefields and foul
frontline hospitals of Angola, by the handiwork of the death squads in Haiti
and by the wholesale butchery of Rwanda. But I nearly lost my breakfast last
week at the Basrah Maternity and Children's Hospital in southern Iraq.

Dr Amer, the hospital's director, had invited me into a room in which were
displayed colour photographs of what, in cold medical language, are called
"congenital anomalies", but what you and I would better understand as
horrific birth deformities. The images of these babies were head-spinningly
grotesque - and thank God they didn't bring out the real thing, pickled in
formaldehyde. At one point I had to grab hold of the back of a chair to
support my legs.

I won't spare you the details. You should know because - according to the
Iraqis and in all likelihood the World Health Organisation, which is soon to
publish its findings on the spiralling birth defects in southern Iraq - we
are responsible for these obscenities.

During the Gulf war, Britain and the United States pounded the city and its
surroundings with 96,000 depleted-uranium shells. The wretched creatures in
the photographs - for they were scarcely human - are the result, Dr Amer
said.

He guided me past pictures of children born without eyes, without brains.
Another had arrived in the world with only half a head, nothing above the
eyes. Then there was a head with legs, babies without genitalia, a little
girl born with her brain outside her skull and the whatever-it-was whose
eyes were below the level of its nose.

Then the chair-grabbing moment - a photograph of what I can only describe
(inadequately) as a pair of buttocks with a face and two amphibian arms.
Mercifully, none of these babies survived for long.

Depleted uranium has an incubation period in humans of five years. In the
four years from 1991 (the end of the Gulf war) until 1994, the Basrah
Maternity Hospital saw 11 congenital anomalies. Last year there were 221.

Then there is the alarming increase in cases of leukaemia among Basrah
babies lucky enough to have been born with the full complement of limbs and
features in the right place. The hospital treated 15 children with leukaemia
in 1993. In 2000 it was 60. By the end of this year that figure again will
be topped. And so it will go on. Forever.

(Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Total disintegration
occurs after 25 billion years, the age of the earth.)

In any other country, in which the vital drugs are available, 95 per cent of
these infant leukaemia cases would be treated successfully. In Basrah, the
figure is 20 per cent. Most heartbreakingly, many children on the road to
recovery go into relapse part way through treatment when the sporadic and
meagre supply of drugs runs out. And then they die.

By the United Nations' own admission 5,000 Iraqi children die every month
because of a shortage of medicines created by sanctions imposed by ... the
United Nations.

Tony Blair, on numerous occasions, has misled Parliament and the country
(perhaps unwittingly) by saying that Saddam Hussein is free to buy all the
medicines Iraq needs under the oil-for-food programme. This is not true. Oil
for food amounts to just 60 cents (40p) per Iraqi per day and everything -
food, education, health care and rebuilding of infrastructure - has to come
out of that. There simply is not enough to go around.

And has Mr Blair heard of the UN Security Council 661 Committee? If he has,
then he keeps quiet about it. The committee was certainly unknown to me
until I toured the shabby hospitals of Basrah.

This committee, which meets in secret in New York and does not publish
minutes, supervises sanctions on Iraq. President Saddam is not free to buy
Iraq's non-military needs on the world market. The country's requirements
have to be submitted to 661 and, often after bureaucratic delay, a judgement
is handed down on what Iraq can and cannot buy. I have obtained a copy of
recent 661 rulings and some of the decisions seem daft if not peevish. "Dual
use" is the most common reason to refuse a purchase, meaning the item
requested could be put to military use.

So how does the 661 committee expect Saddam Hussein to wage war with "beef
extract powder and broth"? Does 661 expect him to turn on the Kurds again by
spraying them with "malt extract"? Or to send his presidential guard back
into Kuwait armed to the teeth with "pencils"? Pencils, you see, according
to 661, contain graphite and therefore could be put to military use. (Tough
on the eager schoolchildren of Basrah who have little with which to write).

Across town at the Basrah Teaching Hospital, the whimsical rulings of 661
are not so comical. Dr Jawad Al-Ali, the director of oncology, trained in
the UK and a member of the Royal College of Physicians, talked of an
"epidemic" of cancers in southern Iraq. "The number of cancer cases is
doubling every year. So is the severity of the cancers, and there has been a
big increase in cancer among the young," he said.

Last week he was struggling to treat 20 cancer patients with "a huge
shortage of chemotherapy drugs" and just two days supply of morphine. "We
are crippled," he said, "by Committee 661." The doctor applied for, but was
denied, life-saving machinery - deep X-ray equipment, blood component
separators, even needles for biopsies. All, said 661, could have military
use.

Tell that to Mofidah Sabah, the mother of four-year-old Yahia. The little
boy has both leukaemia in relapse and neuroblastoma, a cancer behind the eye
that has bulged and twisted his left eyeball in its socket. Ms Sabah travels
miles every day to sit and cuddle her son on his grubby bed. If Yahia lived
in Birmingham, his chances of survival would not be in much doubt. But not
in Basrah. "I'm afraid he will not live very long," Dr Amer whispered.

Ms Sabah said: "I will leave everything to God, but I want God to revenge
those who attacked us." Yahia's illness is not her first brush with tragedy.
She lost 12 members of her family during an Allied bombing in 1991. Her
husband, a soldier, fought in the Gulf war. He is still in the Iraqi army
and has just been reposted, to Qurna, 50 miles north of Basra and among the
contaminated former battlefields. Qurna, according to legend, was the site
of the Garden of Eden.




As to the cleanup after the Gulf War,it was inadequate.That's not to say that there is a single person or nation to blame ,but I'd put the responsibility with those who deployed the weapons in the first place.Here's an article that touches on the lingering effects of 20 years of warfare in Iraq.

http://www.landmines.org.uk/223

I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. can justify its attack on Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein is a hazard to his people ,and then ship 90,000 landmines into the region.I can see no legitimate reason why the U.S. continues to possess thes barbaric tools,and if the President wants to assume the high moral ground in deciding what other leaders should and shouldn't be permitted to do he should be seen to be above reproach himself.

Cluster bombs,DU and mines have all been proven to have long term civilian killing potential that in my opinion negates any 'liberation' argument.If mr Bush wants to be seen as a fair and honest enforcer of humanitarian standards,he should outlaw their use and sign the 1998 Ottawa Land Mine treaty.I feel tht the 130 countries that have already signed have done the right thing,and that the failure of the U.S.to ratify the treaty indicates an arrogance towards the very humanitarian values that they have accused Saddam Hussein of lacking.



texan,you have presented many questions in your last post,and it would take me a lot of space to answer them all in detail.The fact that I lack a tertiary qualification in the art of debating means that I may not always convey my thoughts with the same clarity as you do,and to fully explain my position would probably take more text than the average reader would be willing to read.So I will sum up my position as simply as possible in reply to just one of your questions.

Originally posted by texan

Oh BTW, toxic is a term that can be applied to just about any weapon. Lead bullets are extremely toxic to humans in the right environment, should we stop using those too?

In short,I'd very much like that to happen.The world would be a far better place if we just stopped killing each other for a while,and focused on putting right the damage caused by years of almost-constant wars.I'd really like it to happen,and it's a major factor that influences my vote. I'm not kidding myself that it will happen any time soon,but I'm damned if I am going to back down an inch from my position because I believe it to be right.

[texan]

Interesting reading, and I can agree with you on mostly every point you just made. I'm still not sold on the fact that DU has caused all the mayhem in Basra, partially because of the lack of direct evidence and mostly because I believe many areas of Southern Iraq were exposed to mustard gas and other toxins during the first Gulf War (I believe that mustard gas and sarin are most likely responsible for the "Gulf War Syndrome"). Mustard gas damages the DNA of cells, and Hussein is known to have used it in the past against the Kurds. What's worse, small doses of the stuff (much like radiation, only worse) seem to cause more overall harm than a large dose because the exposure is not immediately deadly or treated. But that's just my hypothesis, and certainly I don't claim it's a good thing we are dispersing even depleted uranium into any zone near people.

It would be very interesting if someone did an honest study of the problem in Basra to confirm what, if anything, is going on there.

[Murco]

Originally posted by Milliardo


Well, if American military personnel are not specialists at knowing what are WMDs, then you have a big problem there now. It's not sarcastic--it's just logic. They are in the military--they're supposed to know what they are looking for, since it is in their training. Or else you're wasting your tax dollars on military training when your soldiers can't even tell the difference between WMD and pesticide. I think that you should think what you are posting, since what you just posted before makes the U.S. military seem incompetent at knowing what WMDs are, and they still need specialists to go in and verify it for them.

What looks different when you put C4 next to modeling clay? Could you tell any difference? There are about 170 different compounds used in chemical warfare alone, 60 different known biological agents, and nuclear weaponry can be anything from a packing box to a missile. If all the different chem and bio weapons were lined up in mason jars I would only be able to ID 4 of them by sight, and I'm trained in the field. The specialists use special detection equipment and techniques that an "average soldier" in ANY army would have little practical use for. It's true, the basic mission of any army is to kill people and break things...

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki


Indeed I do.The citizens of Basra enjoy an abnormally high rate of cancer already,thanks to the depleted uranium shells used in the last Gulf War.Add the latest pile of nuclear waste scattered across the landscape,and you've got really grim health prospects for a large number of those that you 'liberated'. Couple that with enormous amounts of unexploded ordinance,a huge number of Iraqi small arms unaccounted for,and a massive amount of infrastructure to be rebuilt,let's not kid anyone that this is automatically going to be a 'happy ever after' tale.

But the Iraqi's never did anything bad to destroy their country. No. Its the evil Americans.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


But the Iraqi's never did anything bad to destroy their country. No. Its the evil Americans.

Of course the Iraqi military has contributed to the ongoing problems in their country.They've laid mines,abandoned unexeploded ordinance,damaged infrastucture etc etc.All the things that a retreating army does in times of war.If the war hadn't happened,the desecration would have been less.The ancient treasures of the museums would not have been pillaged.The hospitals would not need armed guards to prevent looting.The civilian population would not be protesting against American occupation.The best thin the army can do now is let the Iraqis determine their own future and confine their efforts to clearing up their own mess.

[Milliardo]

Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says America's job of installing a strong democratic system in Iraq will require at least five years.

"I would think at least we ought to be thinking of a period of five years of time. Now, that may understate it," he added.

Amusing. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that this is the length of time Bushie has in his Presidency, assuming Americans elect him (and he not steal the results again)? Tara, what are your thoughts on this?

What looks different when you put C4 next to modeling clay? Could you tell any difference? There are about 170 different compounds used in chemical warfare alone, 60 different known biological agents, and nuclear weaponry can be anything from a packing box to a missile. If all the different chem and bio weapons were lined up in mason jars I would only be able to ID 4 of them by sight, and I'm trained in the field. The specialists use special detection equipment and techniques that an "average soldier" in ANY army would have little practical use for. It's true, the basic mission of any army is to kill people and break things...

Interesting. It makes me even more amused to know that the U.S. military is much more incompetent that they need specialists who have special detection equipment. Shouldn't the U.S. military have these things, since they are the military after all. Or maybe this is just another sad excuse for not finding WMDs--"Look here, we don't have those gadgets right now. We need to bring in specialists who are...ahh...busy with other projects at the moment. So we are not sure if Iraq did have WMDs. But no need to worry--we have Iraq secured, and all the oil we can get. I mean, we secured the oil refineries to ensure that they are still running..."

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki


Of course the Iraqi military has contributed to the ongoing problems in their country.They've laid mines,abandoned unexeploded ordinance,damaged infrastucture etc etc.All the things that a retreating army does in times of war.If the war hadn't happened,the desecration would have been less.The ancient treasures of the museums would not have been pillaged.The hospitals would not need armed guards to prevent looting.The civilian population would not be protesting against American occupation.The best thin the army can do now is let the Iraqis determine their own future and confine their efforts to clearing up their own mess.

You proved my point exactly.