Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?

A part of me says yes out of moral obligation to the Iraqis who didn't ask for the occupation. Another part of me says no because I want us to spend as little of our dollars in Iraq as possible (ideally spending zero).

1. Are we talking only about civilian causalities/injuries?
2. If so, how do you confirm if someone was a civilian or an active insurgent?

Oh hell no. Why should the USA pay Iraqis for terrorists killing them? :confused:

US troops killed VERY few innocent people. Most were killed by terrorists.

sandy, what's the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent? I believe we ARE paying insurgents now, ableit to not kill each other, and us. 10 bucks a day.

Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?

so in the end all they want is more of that american greens. and for a moment i actually thought their aims were pure.

The US could use the money stolen from the Iraqi oil funds, retrieved from the contractors and offshore accounts and spoils of executive compensation packages the same way drug-bought assets are seized. Since they are often outside the US judicial system, simple interrogation techniques would provide their nature and locations, and limited employment of US Special Forces would be sufficient in ther acquisition.

If it gave that money back voluntarily, as "compensation for innocents killed", etc, it could get some better PR out of it, maybe.

And if compensation were restricted to children killed by US weaponry wielded by US personnel, strictly verified, there would be a manageable number - maybe only a few thousand, even counting fetuses in pregnant women shot at checkpoints.

Unlikely, I know.

The payment of reparations to the Afghans, by both the US and Russia, is first in line, anyway.

Of course they should be compensated. Their lives have been completely fucked up through no fault of their own. The US is responsible, so they should pay for the damage they caused. I can't even wrap my mind around how anyone can say they do not deserve compensation.

so in the end all they want is more of that american greens. and for a moment i actually thought their aims were pure.

Highly illogical. I can't believe you just called victims of this magnitude greedy. Their desire for compensation is hardly the frivolous type of lawsuit you see over hot coffee at McDonalds. They've been injured, had family killed, and had their lives ruined. Some have been tortured in detention centers.

I figure that they are already being compensated. Billions upon billions are going into repairing their infrastructure and otherwise supporting the nation. Any theoretical debt will be as paid off as our debt to Japan after WWII was.

Hard to say. Either way these people would be poor. 1-2-3-4 what are they fighting for?

We already do, but only in the presence of incontrovertible evidence that the deaths were wrongful, and the result of coalition actions. We recompense for property damage, too, with similar qualifications. Unfortunately those requirements can make it rather difficult to figure out what happened, especially in backwater areas of the country where local record keeping is nearly nonexistent. I'm not sure why anybody would question why this is a good idea, or the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why anybody would question why this is a good idea, or the right thing to do.

Well said.

However, what constitutes wrongful? Does "collateral damage" count?

I don't question whether it is a good idea. I say it's a poor idea and we should not do it. There are sadly, casualties in every war. It is terrible but a truism. In wars the innocent as well as the guilty die.

The majority of the people being killed in Iraq are being killed by fellow Iraqis, not by American or allied troops. When Sunnis kill Shia or Shia kill Sunnis or when either group kills Christians it is not our obligation, either legal or moral to pay the victims families.

There are sadly, casualties in every war. It is terrible but a truism. In wars the innocent as well as the guilty die. This is not a war. It is an occupation. In an occupation, the innocent should not die.

Even during a war, it depends on how the innocent were killed, no? And doesn't an 8 or 10 to 1 innocent/combatant kill ratio give pause for thought, in a war of smart bombs and small scale action ?

Be that as it may, retrieving the money stolen from the Iraqi oil funds over the past few years from the US associates who have received it, and hadning it out to any Iraqis who lost children to specifically American weaponry wielded by Americans, seems alike a harmless and possibly greatly beneficial PR exercise. Any problem with that ?

Well said.

However, what constitutes wrongful? Does "collateral damage" count?
Pretty much any instance where a civilian is harmed by coalition actions entitles them or their survivors to compensation, if evidence exists to prove it.

I don't question whether it is a good idea. I say it's a poor idea and we should not do it. There are sadly, casualties in every war. It is terrible but a truism. In wars the innocent as well as the guilty die.

The majority of the people being killed in Iraq are being killed by fellow Iraqis, not by American or allied troops. When Sunnis kill Shia or Shia kill Sunnis or when either group kills Christians it is not our obligation, either legal or moral to pay the victims families.
Another benefit to compensation is that, in Islamic culture, once payment (any payment) is received, no grudge can be held. Iraqis call it "blood money" but not with a negative connotation. The quicker victims are recompensed, the less time they can hold a grudge, and the less likely the chance becomes that they will begin to turn their ire against the coalition and Iraqi government. There are pragmatic reasons why this is a good idea, to accompany the moral ones.

If it is merely an occupation and not an ongoing war on low simmer there should be no casualties. During an occupation people should not kill the occupiers. If they do or attempt to they just might wind up being killed themselves.

The vast majority of those being killed are no victims of occupying forces but of their neighbors, Muslims of different sects, Arab Muslims killing Kurds, Christians, Assyrians, etc.

We owe no compensation to families of people killed by their neighbors.

Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?

They already do.

Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?

When are you going to see things as they really are instead of only through your own slanted ways? A war happened, many were killed and injured so why should compensation be applied? During any recent war, Vietnam or Kuwait there never was compensation was there? So why do you think that now there should be? I just don't see your point of view on this matter whatsoever. Is Iraq going to compensate the American troops who died when their economy is improved, I'd think not.

A war happened, many were killed and injured so why should compensation be applied?

Did I read that right?

When are you going to see things as they really are instead of only through your own slanted ways? A war happened, many were killed and injured so why should compensation be applied? During any recent war, Vietnam or Kuwait there never was compensation was there? So why do you think that now there should be? I just don't see your point of view on this matter whatsoever. Is Iraq going to compensate the American troops who died when their economy is improved, I'd think not.

Cosmoctraveler, in that you are wrong, in Vietnam we paid Michelin Rubber for every rubber tree, that was blown up, we paid for every water buffalo that ended up dead, we paid for every chicken that got run over crossing the road, we paid for those killed in the cross fire, I don't know about Kuwait, but I would venture it was the same way.

In Vietnam the cost or running over a chicken , was what the chicken cost, plus all the eggs that chicken would laid for a year, plus for all the chicken that would have hatched from those eggs, plus all the eggs those chickens would have laid.

When you ran over a chicken in Vietnam the government paid $650.00, every time a convoy was sighted, the Vietnamese would chase their chickens into the road.

So how many Iraqi deaths have been compensated so far? And what is the compensation? Who pays it?

sounds like the stupid goverment should have just BOUGHT so chickens to replace the killed ones

I cant stop laughing at the idiocy of that

You're assuming the money actually reached the people. Or that people were truly compensated.

Maybe the muslims should compensate us and the families of the dead/injured from 911.

Sure, sue the dead hijackers families.

Then pay the Iraqis for destroying their country infrastructure, murder, torture and unlawful detention.

sounds like the stupid goverment should have just BOUGHT so chickens to replace the killed ones

I cant stop laughing at the idiocy of that

Neither could we.

It was chaos going through a Vill, guts and feathers everywhere.

So how many Iraqi deaths have been compensated so far? And what is the compensation? Who pays it?
If you have a carload of Iraqis that ends up getting blasted to hell mistakenly rushing a checkpoint, their surviving relatives need to take the death certificates to the office of Colonel so-and-so, the local battalion commander, and usually they get a cash sum on the spot. Sympathy pay maxes out at something $2500 per casualty, I think. The money comes from the local commander's discretionary funds, the same funds that pay for things like non-shitbag interpreters and good cigars for the local sheikhs.

This is how it was in late 2005 at least, when I was there last.

Neither could we.

It was chaos going through a Vill, guts and feathers everywhere.

Beats cutting off ears of Vietnamese to make necklaces. What was the compensation for that?

Or for playing soccer with the decapitated head of an Iraqi?

"We was going along the Euphrates River," says Joshua Key, a 27-year-old former U.S. soldier from Oklahoma, detailing a recurring nightmare - a scene he stumbled on shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "It's a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a real sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over here and U.S. troops in between them. I'm thinking, 'Oh my God, what in the hell happened here? What's caused this? Why in the hell did this happen?' We get out and somebody was screaming, 'We fucking lost it here!' I'm thinking, 'Oh, yes, somebody definitely lost it here.'"

Joshua says he was ordered to look around for evidence of a firefight, for something to rationalize the beheaded Iraqis. "I look around just for a few seconds and I don't see anything." But then he noticed the sight that now triggers his nightmares. "I see two soldiers kicking the heads around like a soccer ball. I just shut my mouth, walked back, got inside the tank, shut the door, and it was like, I can't be no part of this. This is crazy. I came here to fight and be prepared for war but this is outrageous. Why did it happen? That's just my question: Why did that happen?"


http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20241

Cosmoctraveler, in that you are wrong, in Vietnam we paid Michelin Rubber for every rubber tree, that was blown up, we paid for every water buffalo that ended up dead, We paid Michelin Rubber, for sure. We kind of overlooked some of the water buffalo. Let's say most of the water buffalo.

The ones in Cambodia, in particular. Laos. Killed by bombs. The ones shot at My Lai and similar incidents.

As far as compensation to Iraqis, the US rules on all claims based on soldiers' reports - if a soldier didn't see it and report it, it didn't happen. So the convoy shootings, bomb, and artillery deaths, for examples, are mostly not covered (they aren't seen).

And the US pays no compensation (except by immediate command discretion, apparently) for any deaths "in combat", or anyone killed by the tens of thousands of mercenaries, or anyone killed by Iraqis regardless of association.

Anyone trace the original source of the money for the compensation funds ? Twenty million a year ought to leave a trail. IIRC some of the early "goodwill" money for similar purposes was paid to the Iraqis out of their own oil money.

Sure, sue the dead hijackers families.

Then pay the Iraqis for destroying their country infrastructure, murder, torture and unlawful detention.

S.A.M. we are, can't you read, Echo 3 Romeo told you that, I told you that, if you care to look it up you will find that we pay, we are paying to rebuild the country, we helped rebuild Germany and Japan after that war, Jesus S.A.M. open you eyes.

If your are Islam I don't want any part of that religion, all I here is Blood for Blood, Money for Blood, Don't Forgive, Don't Forget, Kill in the Name of Allah and the Prophet, if that is what you want get your butt out on the line and Kill for Allah, Mohammad, and go to Paradise.

Guess what we the U.S. forgave Iraq the war debt,

US Forgives Iraq Debt To Clear Way for IMF Reforms
US Forgives Iraq Debt To Clear Way for IMF Reforms. By Brian Dominick .... countries to purchase war materiel," Alnasrawi wrote in a recent analysis. ...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/reconstruct/2004/1219uscancelled.htm

US Forgives Iraq Debt To Clear Way for IMF Reforms
By Brian Dominick
NewStandard
December 19, 2004

In a move that took a full step beyond expectations, the US Departments of State and Treasury announced yesterday the dissolution of all outstanding debt they previously claimed Iraq owed Washington.

We paid Michelin Rubber, for sure. We kind of overlooked some of the water buffalo. Let's say most of the water buffalo.

The ones in Cambodia, in particular. Laos. Killed by bombs. The ones shot at My Lai and similar incidents.

As far as compensation to Iraqis, the US rules on all claims based on soldiers' reports - if a soldier didn't see it and report it, it didn't happen. So the convoy shootings, bomb, and artillery deaths, for examples, are mostly not covered (they aren't seen).

And the US pays no compensation (except by immediate command discretion, apparently) for any deaths "in combat", or anyone killed by the tens of thousands of mercenaries, or anyone killed by Iraqis regardless of association.

Anyone trace the original source of the money for the compensation funds ? Twenty million a year ought to leave a trail. IIRC some of the early "goodwill" money for similar purposes was paid to the Iraqis out of their own oil money.


Bullshit.

In a move that took a full step beyond expectations, the US Departments of State and Treasury announced yesterday the dissolution of all outstanding debt they previously claimed Iraq owed Washington.

Did they also bring to life the 500,000 children killed under sanctions, the one million dead, restore the country and its economy and release all those detained? Did they return all they STOLE from Iraq? Big fucking deal.

How about an Iraqi kills everyone in your family, bombs your house and steals your assets and THEN pays your credit card and other debts? Is this supposed to make restitution?

Bullshit. What part, Buffalo? You claiming we paid for the water buffalo taken out by the B-52s in Cambodia ?

Or are you claiming we pay compensation for mercenary killings in Iraq? Got an example for us ?

If you have a carload of Iraqis that ends up getting blasted to hell mistakenly rushing a checkpoint, their surviving relatives need to take the death certificates to the office of Colonel so-and-so, the local battalion commander, and usually they get a cash sum on the spot. Sympathy pay maxes out at something $2500 per casualty, I think. The money comes from the local commander's discretionary funds, the same funds that pay for things like non-shitbag interpreters and good cigars for the local sheikhs.

This is how it was in late 2005 at least, when I was there last.

2500 dollars? What is the price for a dead American?:mad:

Did they also bring to life the 500,000 children killed under sanctions, the one million dead, restore the country and its economy and release all those detained? Did they return all they STOLE from Iraq? Big fucking deal.

How about an Iraqi kills everyone in your family and pays your credit card and other debts? Is this supposed to make restitution?

According to Sharia and the Quran it is. Remember I am a Dhimmi, the only right I have under Islam and Sharia' is compensation.

According to Sharia and the Quran it is. Remember I am a Dhimmi, the only right I have under Islam and Sharia' is compensation.

According to sharia, the victim decides the restitution. They can demand blood for blood.

What part, Buffalo? You claiming we paid for the water buffalo taken out by the B-52s in Cambodia ?

Or are you claiming we pay compensation for mercenary killings in Iraq? Got an example for us ?

Prove you claim that we didn't pay for Water Buffalo killed by our actions in Vietnam or Cambodia.

BRADMCCALL.BLOGSPOT.COM- war resisters welcome here.: Blackwater ...
-Compensation paid to family of an Iraqi vice presidential guard killed by a drunken Blackwater operator in the Green Zone last Christmas Eve: $20000 ...
http://bradmccall.blogspot.com/2007/11/blackwater-shadow-army.html

According to sharia, the victim decides the restitution. They can demand blood for blood.

Only if your are Moslem, as a Dhimmi, do I have that right?

US Forgives Iraq Debt To Clear Way for IMF Reforms This ought to be interesting. Most of the countries trashed by IMF "reforms" had an economy of some feeble sort to begin with, which tended to cast the IMF reforms in a bad light. Maybe we can have our first country to actually do no worse after the IMF reforms than before them.

Did they also forgive Saddam's war debt to Kuwait, or is ten or fifteen percent of the official oil take still headed to the manicured misogycracy of that exemplary US ally - and its business associates, naturally ?

2500 dollars? What is the price for a dead American? It's a compliance with local custom, SAM, in cases of "no fault". The actual compensation for guilty wrong can go much higher.

This ought to be interesting. Most of the countries trashed by IMF "reforms" had an economy of some feeble sort to begin with, which tended to cast the IMF reforms in a bad light. Maybe we can have our first country to actually do no worse after the IMF reforms than before them.

Did they also forgive Saddam's war debt to Kuwait, or is ten or fifteen percent of the official oil take still headed to the manicured misogycracy of that exemplary US ally - and its business associates, naturally ?

It's a compliance with local custom, SAM, in cases of "no fault". The actual compensation for guilty wrong can go much higher.

Any figures? I hear the Afghan wedding party "accidentally" bombed by the US received $100 dollars per dead and that too was from Karzai.

This ought to be interesting. Most of the countries trashed by IMF "reforms" had an economy of some feeble sort to begin with, which tended to cast the IMF reforms in a bad light. Maybe we can have our first country to actually do no worse after the IMF reforms than before them.

Did they also forgive Saddam's war debt to Kuwait, or is ten or fifteen percent of the official oil take still headed to the manicured misogycracy of that exemplary US ally - and its business associates, naturally ?

It's a compliance with local custom, SAM, in cases of "no fault". The actual compensation for guilty wrong can go much higher.

The U.S. forgave all the debts owed to us by Iraq.

As far as compensation to Iraqis, the US rules on all claims based on soldiers' reports - if a soldier didn't see it and report it, it didn't happen.
This is incorrect. Locals can effectively argue their case using any range of documents, from death certificates (most common) to police statements, affidavits from witnesses, hospital records, etc.

This is incorrect. Locals can effectively argue their case using any range of documents, from death certificates (most common) to police statements, affidavits from witnesses, hospital records, etc.

Any evidence of your claim?

According to this:

Dahr Jamail reports on the struggling health care situation in Iraq. The report surveys 13 Iraqi Hospitals, examines the actions taken by US military against hospitals and care workers that constitute war crimes as defined by the Geneva conventions, discusses and documents cases of US medical personnel complicit in torture through failures to document the visible signs of torture on their patients, and much more.

torture is ignored.

According to this:
about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated.
most troops would not report torture or murder or treat Iraqis as human beings.

So what evidence do you have that Iraqi claims will even receive a hearing?

Prove you claim that we didn't pay for Water Buffalo killed by our actions in Vietnam or Cambodia. Oh c'mon. If you recall, we refused to admit we had killed any water buffalo at all in Cambodia for years after we had carpet bombed square miles of the country. Are you claiming we set up a compensation service in Cambodia, and laid out payments for tens of thousands of water buffalo, without ever admitting to have bombed the place, or even sent soldiers into it ?

Or that we went through the refugee camps of Vietnam handing out checks to the farmers for their blown up chickens and draft animals, based on their word ?

This is incorrect. Locals can effectively argue their case using any range of documents, from death certificates (most common) to police statements, affidavits from witnesses, hospital records, etc. These guys don't think so: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/12/iraq15687_txt.htm
Cases where Iraqis were killed by soldiers traveling in US military convoys illustrate the confusion in US policy, which states that deaths in “combat” are not eligible for compensation. - - -

Other claims are denied, even if witnesses corroborate a claim of death, because the incident is not found in the military’s “significant actions” database, in which soldiers are supposed to log combat actions and civilian casualties after returning from mission.

Oh c'mon. If you recall, we refused to admit we had killed any water buffalo at all in Cambodia for years after we had carpet bombed square miles of the country. Are you claiming we set up a compensation service in Cambodia, and laid out payments for tens of thousands of water buffalo, without ever admitting to have bombed the place, or even sent soldiers into it ?

Or that we went through the refugee camps of Vietnam handing out checks to the farmers for their blown up chickens and draft animals, based on their word ?

These guys don't think so: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/12/iraq15687_txt.htm


I was their, I flew the C.A.T., (Civic Action Teams) out to the vills, and I watched them hand out the Piaster.

Now prove thta we didn't pay for the Water Buffalo that we killed.

I don't want what these guys think, I want fact.

One of the cases that I am thoroughly familiar with, involved a W.O.II, nicked named the Pig, Mr. Pig, was a six foot tall Texas Cowboy with the reddest hair I have ever seen on a human, He was our Maintaince flight Officer, it was his job to take the aircraft out and test flight them after maintaince.

Well my slick had just come out of 100hr, maintaince, and the Pig took it out for its test flight, now Mr.Pig being a frustrated cowboy in Nam, saw this herd of water bo, and decides to get a little round up going, so he get down to about 3 ft. AGL and starts to round up the water bo, he is having a grand old time doing so, until one old bull swaps ends and charges the Slick.

Well Pig put the left skid right through that water bo's forehead, rips the skid off the slick an almost kills himself before getting control and coming back to base, he had to call for a sand bag pad to land on because he had ripped the skids off the bird.

Well that little flight cost him $1000.00 for the water buffalo, and $450.00 dollars for the skids, and it came out of his own pocket, so don't tell me that the U.S. doesn't pay, or make sure the responsible party does pay, I was there.

These guys don't think so: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/...q15687_txt.htm

In the article it show that payments are being made.

No it does not

File Not Found
Documento no encontrado
Fichier introuvable

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/...q15687_txt.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/...q15687_txt.htm

The documents show 164 incidents resulted in cash payments to family members

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/...q15687_txt.htm

The documents show 164 incidents resulted in cash payments to family members

And the Iraq Body count (verified by Western standards) shows coalition forces casualties to be ?

164*2500. Wow, how utterly generous. Total restitution indeed

/spits

I was their, I flew the C.A.T., (Civic Action Teams) out to the vills, and I watched them hand out the Piaster. I don't think anyone has claimed that the US never paid for a single water buffalo killed by a helicopter in Vietnam.

I was their, I flew the C.A.T., (Civic Action Teams) out to the vills, and I watched them hand out the Piaster.

Now prove thta we didn't pay for the Water Buffalo that we killed. I'll use your accounts as evidence. It seems you never flew to a big refugee camp to hand out the piastre for their thousands of animals. It seems you did not fly to the bombed zones in Cambodia to hand out the piastre fort heir tens of thousands of animals. It seems you did not fly to any of the scenes of slaughter and atrocity to hand out the piastre ( you have denied ever seeing any such scenes ). So most of the owners of killed water buffalo never received a visit from your piastre delivery. I can find no record of anyone else's piastre delivery to those people. And I can find plenty of official denial, at the time, that there even were any such people, or animals killed. So - if those buffalo were paid for, by whom and how ?

On topic now: Cambodian bombed buffalo? Refugees' abandoned farm-bombed buffalo ? Deliberately slaughtered combat zone buffalo ? Tens of thousands of water buffalo and other domestic animals killed throughout the region ?

These guys don't think so: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/12/iraq15687_txt.htm
I have no doubt that legitimate claims have been denied simply because no coalition personnel recorded it, but a confirmation of death by coalition personnel at the scene is not a requirement for compensation according to policy.

I figure that they are already being compensated. Billions upon billions are going into repairing their infrastructure and otherwise supporting the nation. Any theoretical debt will be as paid off as our debt to Japan after WWII was.

Wouldn't it make more sense not to destroy their infrastructure in the first place? Just a thought.

Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?
Should Iraq compensate for Americans injured or killed by the necessity to clean up their own house for them?

And what makes you believe that you are naturally appointed to adjudication of all things American without first having been elected by actual Americans to the presumption you represent us in our best interests for our own good?

You can bitch. We can ignore.

You can bitch. We can ignore.
Go ahead. Make my day. :shrug:

Wouldn't it make more sense not to destroy their infrastructure in the first place? Just a thought.
Of course, and great efforts were made not to, as far as structuring entire combat plans to leave infrastructure as unmolested as possible. One thing you've got to keep in mind, however, is that a lot of stuff was either already broken or just really old by 2003. The problem is the same that plagues the infrastructure throughout Iraq - Saddam. Basically, nothing relating to economic development or public well being was bought, repaired, or upgraded from the time Saddam took power until we moved in because Saddam was too busy buying useless old Soviet tanks and gold toilets. Thus, every time we want to fix something (say, a power plant), we're looking at either recreating 1960s era British parts or simply rebuilding the whole thing. The entire oil infrastructure is in this situation.

This more than the insurgency itself is the reason for the painfully slow crawl back to normalcy.

in a perfect world the iraqis would pay the americans for risking their life and their integrity in helping them getting rid of saddam.

Go ahead. Make my day. :shrug:

lol. Nice quote

S.A.M.,

You seem to have a major problem with Muslims compensating the families of the thousands killed in the World Trade Center and on the planes but are demanding compensation for any Iraqis killed, including those who died while sanctions were in place.

The sanctions were not a United States decision but a United Nations decision so why should the U.S. pay compensation?

Those Iraqis who died during the battle phase of they war are war casualties and their families deserve no compensation and those killed during the occupaion have been killed mainly by other Iraqis and again deserving of no compensation by the United States.

S.A.M.,

You seem to have a major problem with Muslims compensating the families of the thousands killed in the World Trade Center and on the planes but are demanding compensation for any Iraqis killed, including those who died while sanctions were in place.

The sanctions were not a United States decision but a United Nations decision so why should the U.S. pay compensation?

Those Iraqis who died during the battle phase of they war are war casualties and their families deserve no compensation and those killed during the occupaion have been killed mainly by other Iraqis and again deserving of no compensation by the United States.
Still humming the BS I see.

Why was Iraq attacked again?

in a perfect world the iraqis would pay the americans for risking their life and their integrity in helping them getting rid of saddam.

Since it was the CIA that supported Saddam into power and the US that funded and armed him, that would actually mean the Iraqis should attack America for supporting a dictatorship in their country.

Since it was the CIA that supported Saddam into power and the US that funded and armed him, that would actually mean the Iraqis should attack America for supporting a dictatorship in their country.

probably because they thought a secular leader is better then an islamic one. that until the iran iraq war, and the invasion of kuweit.

i think the real blame is on the brits who artificially created iraq.

probably because they thought a secular leader is better then an islamic one.

Like in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Pull the other one.

Like in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Pull the other one.

saudi arabia that supports terror, indonesia, the muslim brotherhood.....muslims are known for their love to western states and values, with the US in the front.

saudi arabia that supports terror, indonesia, the muslim brotherhood.....muslims are known for their love to western states and values, with the US in the front.

Yeah, so when are they being invaded?:rolleyes:

Yeah, so when are they being invaded?:rolleyes:

i think the americans has had enough of fighting when the rest of the self righteous western world criticizes them for everything.

until the terrorists strike again that is, maybe a british airport?

i think the americans has had enough of fighting when the rest of the self righteous western world criticizes them for everything.

until the terrorists strike again that is, maybe a british airport?

Or an Indian railway? Maybe we should attack a totally irrelevant country everytime there is an attack.

Or an Indian railway? Maybe we should attack a totally irrelevant country everytime there is an attack.

but you muslims do.

but you muslims do.

Stereotyping from a Jew? Thats a laugh!:p

Stereotyping from a Jew? Thats a laugh!:p

so muslims dont blow up in the name of allah? ill bet you got an explosive belt hidden somewhere.

so muslims dont blow up in the name of allah? ill bet you got an explosive belt hidden somewhere.

I took my Beano today. :o

I took my Beano today. :o

ill bet youre deadly with an ak47.

ill bet youre deadly with an ak47.

I prefer nagging. It gets more results. And you can do it all over again the next day :D

Basically, nothing relating to economic development or public well being was bought, repaired, or upgraded from the time Saddam took power until we moved in because Saddam was too busy buying useless old Soviet tanks and gold toilets There was the small matter of ten years of embargo on exactly that stuff.

Probably made a bit more difference than a few gold toilets. Especially considering Saddam was able get all that infrastructure installed and running fine, along with the gold toilets, before the blockade.

If the families of the dead children from the sanctions are due compensation, the bill is going to be large.

There was the small matter of ten years of embargo on exactly that stuff.

Probably made a bit more difference than a few gold toilets. Especially considering Saddam was able get all that infrastructure installed and running fine, along with the gold toilets, before the blockade.

If the families of the dead children from the sanctions are due compensation, the bill is going to be large.

The sanctions were legally passed, UN resolutions. How could that possibly come to be, except if the entier Security Council all chip in. Which I doubt.

~String

The sanctions were legally passed, UN resolutions. How could that possibly come to be, except if the entier Security Council all chip in. Which I doubt I doubt anyone expects it to come to be. LIke Russian or US reparations for Afghanistan, it's pipe dreaming.

But as far as moral debt, the devil is in the details: it was the US that made sure things like anesthesia, prosthetics, medical supplies, water treatment chlorine, disinfectant, etc, were on the banned list. And the US that set up a ridiculous bureaucracy to slow down what wasn't possible to ban for PR reasons. And the US that provided the muscle.

But as far as moral debt, the devil is in the details: it was the US that made sure things like anesthesia, prosthetics, medical supplies, water treatment chlorine, disinfectant, etc, were on the banned list. And the US that set up a ridiculous bureaucracy to slow down what wasn't possible to ban for PR reasons. And the US that provided the muscle.

Why did the US put these things on the banned list? Apart from the deaths of 500,000 children due to lack of basic medication, what did they hope to achieve?

I can only speculate but maybe they thought if they made things so bad the iraqies would get rid of sudam. Its a brutal way to get what you want though

What precedent were they using for this assumption? Or was it, like every other decision they make, a random act of ignorance?

I doubt anyone expects it to come to be. LIke Russian or US reparations for Afghanistan, it's pipe dreaming.

But as far as moral debt, the devil is in the details: it was the US that made sure things like anesthesia, prosthetics, medical supplies, water treatment chlorine, disinfectant, etc, were on the banned list. And the US that set up a ridiculous bureaucracy to slow down what wasn't possible to ban for PR reasons. And the US that provided the muscle.

Provide citation of such actions.

Look it up for your self.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1716631

Should the US compensate for Iraqis injured or killed by the occupation?

Absolutely not. The question is loaded and makes no specifics whatsoever.

Looks more like another Americanophobe thread.

Absolutely not. The question is loaded and makes no specifics whatsoever.

Looks more like another Americanophobe thread.

Its an occupation, what would you like to specify?

All those who would not have died violent deaths or been tortured or detained for years without charge or trial if not for the US occupation.

A better question would be, should Bush II and family pay for the war in Iraq. I would vote an overwhelming yes to that question.

Absolutely not. The question is loaded and makes no specifics whatsoever.

Looks more like another Americanophobe thread.

Maybe it would help to imagine it happening to you. Would you want Americans to receive reparations from China, if China occupied us? Reparations for any of the following: injury, death of family, loss of property, torture... ruining of life. Or would that be a sinophobic question?

I think we should leave today - that's payment enough.
But if we stay then yes we should pay, and then pay some more and pay then pay some more. Each American should get a bill in the mail each year that says you own X number of dollars to pay for the war. Maybe the next time some Republican idiot gets on TV and talks about WMD or some other bull shit, we Americans will think about how it hurt our pocket last time and then twice before invading another country.

Money seems to be the best way to get people's attention.

I think we should leave today - that's payment enough.
But if we stay then yes we should pay, and then pay some more and pay then pay some more. Each American should get a bill in the mail each year that says you own X number of dollars to pay for the war. Maybe the next time some Republican idiot gets on TV and talks about WMD or some other bull shit, we Americans will think about how it hurt our pocket last time and then twice before invading another country.

Money seems to be the best way to get people's attention.

I agree with the bill in the mail part. Americans would actually care about the war if they saw the cost in dollars. A million civilians or so won't, nor will the deaths or injuries of thousands of their troops, but I guarantee money would really make most of them care.

Provide citation of such actions.
I would also be curious to see that sourced, because the sanctions pretty clearly did not restrict humanitarian goods as a matter of policy.

UN Resolution 687, Paragraph 20.

20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 19919, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

Also, the results of this poll are surprising...and a bit sad.

So first the average Ally taxpayer has to pay extra tax to fund a war that they don't support, and now they are expected to pay more tax to compensate the victims of a war that they didn't support in the first place?

Fuck that for a joke.

Provide citation of such actions. I would also be curious to see that sourced, because the sanctions pretty clearly did not restrict humanitarian goods as a matter of policy.
How long before the people who are simply retailing what's been common discussion fact for ten years and more can just state it, and the people who are making wild assertions about US behavior, such as not blockading public health and medical supplies during the Iraq sanctions, need to find citations ?
Echo, this is I think the fourth time, just in dealing with some post of mine, that your assertions of US "policy" have run counter to the flagrant physical reality of US behavior. Wherever you are getting your information about US policy is a remarkably unreliable source of information about US behavior.
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm
Halliday points out that the sanctions committee “would deliberately approve nine [items] but block the tenth, knowing full well that without the tenth item, the other nine were of no use . . . It’s a deliberate ploy.”
Another couple from Dennis Halliday, the first of two consecutive UN head coordinators (followed by a WHO head coordinator) to resign over humanitarian issues with the UN Security Council sanctions on Iraq.
"Now, when you know what’s happening and you continue this program for 12 years, that has got I think to become intentionality. And that’s what I fear we have in the case of the Security Council. So we’ve been killing the people of Iraq knowingly, we’ve been collectively punishing the people of Iraq under these economic sanctions, which are uniquely comprehensive—every aspect of life has been damaged or destroyed by this United Nations endeavor. It’s so grossly incompatible with Article 1 and Article 2 of the [U.N.] Charter, incompatible with the Declaration of Human Rights, and it’s incompatible with the Geneva Conventions, which specifically prohibit the targeting of civilians during warfare.”
- - - -
"One state, one vote. By contrast, the Security Council has five permanent members which have veto rights. There is no democracy there. Had the issue of sanctions on Iraq gone to the General Assembly, it would have been overturned by a very large majority.
"We have to change the United Nations, to reclaim what is ours. The genocide in Iraq is the test of our will. All of us have to break the silence: to make those responsible, in Washington and London, aware that history will slaughter them."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1599.htm in a context of apparent depleted uranium effects, especially leukemia, in the 90s near Basra:
- -Professor Rokke says he has watched Iraqi officials pleading with American and British officials to ease the embargo, if only to allow decontaminating and cancer assessment equipment to be imported. - -
The United Nations Sanctions Committee in New York, set up by the Security Council to administer the embargo, is dominated by the Americans, who are backed by the British. Washington has vetoed or delayed a range of vital medical equipment, chemotherapy drugs, even pain-killers. - - -
- - chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation (WHO), wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee]. - -
- --
"The saddest thing I saw in Iraq was children dying because there was no chemotherapy and no pain control. It seemed crazy they couldn't have morphine, because for everybody with cancer pain, it is the best drug. When I was there, they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go round 200 patients in pain. - - -
I told him that one of the doctors had been especially upset because the UN Sanctions Committee had banned nitrous oxide as "weapons dual use"; yet this was used in caesarean sections to stop bleeding, and perhaps save a mother's life. "I can see no logic to banning that," he said. "I am not an armaments expert, but the amounts used would be so small - - -
http://www.enterthebabylonsystem.com/?p=182 - - sanctions against Iraq have been unprecedented in terms of broadness and stringency. Many consumer products with potential dual-uses in weapons programs have been listed among those restricted by the sanctions, including fertilizers, pesticides, syringes, plastic bags for blood transfusions, medical diagnostic equipment and chlorine

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0715-06.htm
A series of six related reports document the degradation of the Iraqi water supply that took place in the first half of 1991. Predictions were made of outbreaks or epidemics of hepatitis and cholera, and the fulfillment of these predictions was subsequently documented in detail.
- - concern about blocks and holds placed on contracts for import of water purification equipment and chemicals in the UN Security Council. Holds on seventeen out of eighteen contracts were placed by the United States, and the last was placed by the United Kingdom.
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2002/08/article05.shtml
Some of the items banned under the ‘dual use’ rule include medical equipment as heart and lung machines, incubators, X-ray machines and ambulances. Medication such as analgesics, chemotherapeutics and vaccines have also been banned by the Security Council claiming they could be transformed into biological or chemical weapons. The poor supply of electricity and lack of generators (which have also been banned) have greatly affected hospital care, including of course surgical operations which have experienced a 70% drop from an average of 15,000 operations per month in 1989 to less than 4,500. Laboratory investigations have also experienced a drop of 65.4%. According to Dr. Mubarak, the Iraqi Minister of Health, the government health spending has been reduced from an annual US$550 million to US$26 million that Iraq receives under the Jordan-Iraq protocol (Europa). Sterilization of equipment and refrigeration have similarly been adversely affected.
- - - -
The former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Dennis Halliday, started the oil-for-food program in Iraq. He resigned from his post of Assistant Secretary-General in protest of the sanctions. His successor Hans Von Sponeck also resigned. On 29 November 2001 they wrote an article in which they noted: “The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4 billions of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/DefyingSanctions.html
Under the deleterious “dual use” doctrine, many vital commodities and materials needed for humanitarian and civilian purposes are banned because they conceivably could also be used by the military: computers, components for electrical transmitters and water pumps, even glycerin tablets needed for heart ailments.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SanctionsSiegeWarfare.html
The Security Council formed the "661 committee," consisting of representatives of each nation in the Security Council, to monitor the sanctions against Iraq established in SC Resolution 661. At the same time, the committee was also responsible for granting humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions. The result was that it put in place procedures that in fact functioned as obstacles to any smooth influx of food and medicine. A cumbersome sanctions bureaucracy scrutinized and approved or denied every contract, the proposed quantity of goods, their price and their intended use.

To sell humanitarian goods to Iraq, a company would submit an application to its national mission at the UN, which would then turn it over to the 661 committee. But the 661 committee did not publish any criteria for approval, and its meetings were closed sessions at which neither Iraq nor the vendors were allowed to have representatives present to answer questions or offer information in support of the contract. The application process typically took months sometimes as long as two years. And the committee's rulings were inconsistent-the same goods sold by the same company might on one occasion be deemed permissible humanitarian goods and on another be flatly denied without explanation.

In addition, during this period all fifteen members of the committee had to approve exemptions by consensus; thus any nation could effectively exercise veto power or cause repeated delays of weeks or months simply by asking for more information. As a result, it was expensive and exasperating even to apply to sell food and medicine to Iraq. One small British company that sold medical supplies described the process: First, to talk to an Iraqi buyer, public or private, a seller had to apply for a license to negotiate, which could take three to four weeks. Once buyer and seller came to an agreement, the seller had to apply for a supply license, which could take up to twenty weeks. In the meantime, Iraq's currency would have devalued substantially, so the buyer might not be able to afford the same quantity of goods or might need more time to raise the additional hard currency. But that would require a change in the terms of the application, and any change in the application meant the whole process began again. Thus the red tape undermined Iraq's ability to import even those urgent humanitarian goods permitted under the sanctions.
---
While food and medicine were theoretically permitted during this time, "dual use" goods were flatly prohibited. Under the terms of the sanctions, "dual use" items are those that have civilian uses but also may be used by the military or more generally to rebuild the Iraqi economy. Dual-use goods include pesticides and fertilizer, spare parts for crop-dusting helicopters, chlorine for water purification, computers, trucks, telecommunications equipment and equipment to rebuild the electrical grid. Anything that might go toward rebuilding the infrastructure, or toward economic productivity generally, is labeled "dual use." Yet Iraq's infrastructure had been devastated by massive bombing during the Gulf War, which destroyed or caused extensive damage to water treatment plants, dams, generators and power plants, pipes and electrical systems for irrigation and desalinization of agricultural land, textile factories, silos, flour mills, bakeries and countless other buildings and resources.

While Iraq was in principle allowed to import food and medical supplies, it was prohibited from buying the "dual use" equipment needed to grow and distribute food, to treat and distribute potable water, and to generate and distribute electricity for irrigating crops, refrigerating food and operating hospital equipment. The damage to water treatment plants and water distribution networks caused, among other things, a cholera epidemic and increases in waterborne diseases, infant diarrhea, dehydration and infant mortality.
- - -
Iraq submits proposals for every purchase with oil funds every gear, pipe, chemical, valve, piece of plywood, steel bar and rubber tube, for a country of 22 million people, on which it proposes to spend the $2.9 billion expected to come from the current phase of Oil for Food. For each of these items, Iraq is required to specify not only the exact use but the particular end user-which grain silo will be using each of the conveyor belts Iraq wishes to purchase. - - -
- - . At the border, inspection agents under contract to the UN document the arrival of every item, verify quantity and quality, and conduct lab tests to confirm that the goods conform to the contract. Once the goods have crossed the borders, UN observers then confirm the transit of all goods, their storage and equitable distribution, and they document the end use. Finally, UN staff review the documentation of the hundreds of UN observers. All this is paid for by 2.2 percent of the Iraqi oil sales-as of November 1998, $207 million.
- - -
But what Iraq shows us is that it is now possible for sanctions to cause far more than inconvenience or international embarrassment. In the absence of a Soviet bloc as an alternative source of trade, it is now possible to construct a comprehensive sanctions regime that can absolutely break the back of any nation with a weak or import-dependent economy. Iraq has also demonstrated, quite graphically, that sanctions can cause fully as much human suffering as even a massive bombing campaign. Iraqi casualties from the Gulf War were in the range of 10,000 to 50,000. Casualties attributable to sanctions are anywhere from ten to thirty times that-and that's only counting the deaths of young children.

This ought to raise serious ethical concerns, since sanctions (like their low-tech predecessor, siege warfare) historically have caused the most extreme and direct suffering to those who are the weakest, the most vulnerable and the least political. At the same time, those who are affected last and least are the military and political leadership, who are generally insulated from anything except inconvenience and the discomfort of seeing "the fearful spectacle of the civilian dead," to use Michael Walzer's phrase.

Also, the results of this poll are surprising...and a bit sad.

Not to me - it was expected.

How long before the people who are simply retailing what's been common discussion fact for ten years and more can just state it, and the people who are making wild assertions about US behavior, such as not blockading public health and medical supplies during the Iraq sanctions, need to find citations ?
Echo, this is I think the fourth time, just in dealing with some post of mine, that your assertions of US "policy" have run counter to the flagrant physical reality of US behavior. Wherever you are getting your information about US policy is a remarkably unreliable source of information about US behavior.
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm

Another couple from Dennis Halliday, the first of two consecutive UN head coordinators (followed by a WHO head coordinator) to resign over humanitarian issues with the UN Security Council sanctions on Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1599.htm in a context of apparent depleted uranium effects, especially leukemia, in the 90s near Basra:

http://www.enterthebabylonsystem.com/?p=182

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0715-06.htm

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2002/08/article05.shtml

http://www.michaelparenti.org/DefyingSanctions.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SanctionsSiegeWarfare.html

Your own post shows that the supplies were going into Iraq, subject to inspection, to make sure that no contraband was smuggled in along with the supplies, once they were in country and subject to the control of Saddam well then it was his problem to distribute them, after he took his cut, and every official in his government took their's, there was no policy of denying humanitarian supply to Iraq.

I have just finished a call with My sister-in Law, a Nurse Practitioner, and she informs me that there is no set of 9 drugs that would not work with out a specific tenth drug, that drugs are given for their properties alone, and that in many cases there are drugs that can be substitute for treatment regimes, but drugs work by themselves, they do not need to be combined to work.

reading incomprehension 101

does analogy ring a bell?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

Madeleine Albright: "we think the price is worth it"

which sort of answers the question asked here:

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[12] However Sophie Boukhari an UNESCO Courier journalist reports that "Some legal experts are sceptical about or even against using such terminology." and quotes Mario Bettati (who invented the notion of "the right of humanitarian intervention") "People who talk like that don’t know anything about law. The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide." and reports that William Bourdon the secretary-general of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues said "one of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it."[13]

“ Originally Posted by Till Eulenspiegel
S.A.M.,

You seem to have a major problem with Muslims compensating the families of the thousands killed in the World Trade Center and on the planes but are demanding compensation for any Iraqis killed, including those who died while sanctions were in place.

The sanctions were not a United States decision but a United Nations decision so why should the U.S. pay compensation?

Those Iraqis who died during the battle phase of they war are war casualties and their families deserve no compensation and those killed during the occupaion have been killed mainly by other Iraqis and again deserving of no compensation by the United States. ”


Originally posted by S.A.M.
Still humming the BS I see.

Why was Iraq attacked again?

Nice attempt at obfuscation, S.A.M.. Now please explain why it should be necessary to pay compensation to the families of dead Iraqis, including those killed by fellow Iraqis or foreign Muslims and not necessary to pay the families of those killed on 9/11. Why should the United States by held accountable for those payments?

As for the reasons for the attack on Iraq, it was based on false information believed by much of the free world, not just the United States. Since the intelligence communities of other nations also though Saddam had weapons of mass destruction they should bear some responsibility for the attack.

Using the same reasoning and logic those Muslim nations which helped foment hatred of the United States should bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

As for the reasons for the attack on Iraq, it was based on false information believed by much of the free world, not just the United States. Since the intelligence communities of other nations also though Saddam had weapons of mass destruction they should bear some responsibility for the attack.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

The war is for the elite, wealthy oil men who have tremendous personal investments in the oil industry. The US wanted to control the Iraqi oil through their own markets so they could make lots of money from it. Remember how this was after Saddam agreed to start selling oil for Euros in 2000. Weapons of mass destruction? Hah! Why did America start to care all of a sudden? They never had any problems when 50,000 Iranians were gassed to death with chlorine by Saddam. In fact, I remember some handshakes between Saddam and Rumsfeld. Don't you?

Using the same reasoning and logic those Muslim nations which helped foment hatred of the United States should bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Which Muslim nations helped forment the hatred of the US? Is there a particular reason for their hatred?

You seem to have a major problem with Muslims compensating the families of the thousands killed in the World Trade Center and on the planes but are demanding compensation for any Iraqis killed, including those who died while sanctions were in place. It's got something to do with "responsibility" - who was to blame, see ?

The sanctions were not a United States decision but a United Nations decision so why should the U.S. pay compensation? It was a Security Council decision, not a UN decision. And three of the five Security Council members voted to end sanctions.

The US blocked that. The US was also the enforcement muscle, the main banker, and the architect of the administrative aspects.

The US was also bombing Iraq during the sanctions.

So the US is to blame, more than the other Security Concil members. And the UN is not to blame at all.

Which Muslim nations helped forment the hatred of the US? Is there a particular reason for their hatred?

These must be rhetorical questions because it is well known which Muslim nations have allowed hatred of ther U.S. to be fomented within their borders. Try Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia for starters. As for the reason they hate us, that is equally known. They hate us because of our support of Israel.

Which Muslim nations helped forment the hatred of the US? Is there a particular reason for their hatred?

These must be rhetorical questions because it is well known which Muslim nations have allowed hatred of ther U.S. to be fomented within their borders. Try Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia for starters. As for the reason they hate us, that is equally known. They hate us because of our support of Israel.

That's it? They hate you because of your support for Israel? So, Iran doesn't hate you because the American CIA overthrew their democracy run by Mohammed Mossadegh in '53? Or because the U.S. and Israel established the SAVAK, a security agency which was basically a secret police force that iced you if you got out of line? Somalia doesn't hate America for their heinous warcrimes in their nation, and the fact that the U.S. has supported ruthless warlords? Iraqis don't hate you because you're occupying their nation and stealing their wealth? That you supported a vicious dictator that ran the nation before the country was brought to the ground by American troops?

Seriously, Mr. Till Eulenspiegel - don't play stupid with me. You and I both know damn well that there are more reasons for Muslim nations to hate the US than their support for Israel alone.

And we both know the main reason they hate us is out support of Israel. Don't you play stupid by trying to deny it.

How long before the people who are simply retailing what's been common discussion fact for ten years and more can just state it, and the people who are making wild assertions about US behavior, such as not blockading public health and medical supplies during the Iraq sanctions, need to find citations ?
Echo, this is I think the fourth time, just in dealing with some post of mine, that your assertions of US "policy" have run counter to the flagrant physical reality of US behavior. Wherever you are getting your information about US policy is a remarkably unreliable source of information about US behavior.
You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word for it. I learned pretty early on that getting you to source your posts was a good way to save myself some time in responding to them. And I wasn't referring to US policy, but the text of the resolution, so I'm not sure where you got that.

In any case, I am well aware of the blame the UN sanctions received for the humanitarian situation in Iraq during the Gulf Wars hiatus, but there is nothing in your post that is news to me. Many people traveled to Iraq during the cease fire and observed the terrible conditions some Iraqis were living in. None were given unfettered access to the country that would have been intrinsic to developing an honest assessment. Most were used as propaganda tools by the Baath party. Thus, their testimony is highly suspect. Hell, most Iraqis you meet will be quick to blame Saddam for their suffering more than the UN sanctions, because they are recognizant of the fact that he was shunting what little goods and revenue he had left into his ailing military and inner circle of party elitists rather than the population so desperately in need of it. More on that here (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm) and here (http://www.meforum.org/article/548).

Finally, it seems you are one of the shills who got duped by Saddam's propaganda over DU munitions. That one is a myth too (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34787.html).

You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word for it. - -

- - but there is nothing in your post that is news to me. Then why not take your own word for it, and save us both trouble ?
And I wasn't referring to US policy, but the text of the resolution, so I'm not sure where you got that. I was asserting that the US deserved blame (as the main actor in the UN's behavior) for the blockading of medical supplies, public health and related infrastructure needs, etc. You responded with a claim of "policy" countering that. So - - - what aren't you sure of ?

Many people traveled to Iraq during the cease fire and observed the terrible conditions some Iraqis were living in. None were given unfettered access to the country that would have been intrinsic to developing an honest assessment. Most were used as propaganda tools by the Baath party. Thus, their testimony is highly suspect. And you are including all the various people and sources quoted and linked there in that crowd ? If you note, few of those quotes depend on "honest assessments" of anything inside the whole of Iraq.

Regardless of what "most Iraqis" tell US soldiers about the evil Saddam, the question was whether the US, through the UN, blockaded medical and public health supplies, fertilizer, etc, for twelve years, with predicted and predictable, measurable and measured, effects. The answer is yes.

It was a seige. They're ugly.

Finally, it seems you are one of the shills who got duped by Saddam's propaganda over DU munitions I quoted that link for its description of the shortage of medical supplies, not its attribution of the health problems observed to depleted uranium.

That said, I've come to no judgment about DU. It's intrinsically at least moderately hazardous stuff, and the reassurances are not based on thorough considerations (the military ones worthless at best), and there are very strong sources of pressure on reports and investigations; but on the other hand the reports of ill effects have been confused and ephemeral.

And finally, if you are going to be another one of those nuisances here who take irrelevant aspects of sources as pegs to hang deflections of the argument, you're not going to have an easy time getting me to "source my posts" , OK ? Never mind the "shill" crap.

Then why not take your own word for it, and save us both trouble ?
I was asserting that the US deserved blame (as the main actor in the UN's behavior) for the blockading of medical supplies, public health and related infrastructure needs, etc. You responded with a claim of "policy" countering that. So - - - what aren't you sure of ?

And you are including all the various people and sources quoted and linked there in that crowd ? If you note, few of those quotes depend on "honest assessments" of anything inside the whole of Iraq.

Regardless of what "most Iraqis" tell US soldiers about the evil Saddam, the question was whether the US, through the UN, blockaded medical and public health supplies, fertilizer, etc, for twelve years, with predicted and predictable, measurable and measured, effects. The answer is yes.

It was a seige. They're ugly.

I quoted that link for its description of the shortage of medical supplies, not its attribution of the health problems observed to depleted uranium.

That said, I've come to no judgment about DU. It's intrinsically at least moderately hazardous stuff, and the reassurances are not based on thorough considerations (the military ones worthless at best), and there are very strong sources of pressure on reports and investigations; but on the other hand the reports of ill effects have been confused and ephemeral.

And finally, if you are going to be another one of those nuisances here who take irrelevant aspects of sources as pegs to hang deflections of the argument, you're not going to have an easy time getting me to "source my posts" , OK ? Never mind the "shill" crap.


iceaura,

Saddam has the responsibility, he is the one who went off reservation, he is the one who didn't distribute the supplies, he is the one who failed to comply with the terms of the Cease Fire, he is the one who sent most of the supplies to his military, and he is the one who failed his people, actually he took good care of the Sunni, it was the Shia amd Kurds that he left hanging.

Now provide peer review case study that proves the cancerous toxicity of DU.

Show a statistical correlation between exposure to DU and cancer, the EU study shows no increase, even if you eat the stuff.

The only problem with eating the stuff is heavy metal poisoning.

Saddam has the responsibility, he is the one who went off reservation, he is the one who didn't distribute the supplies, Saddam had no input on the decisions, made by the US and backed by Britain, to embargo medical and water purification supplies, or electrical infrastructure parts, or agricultural supplies. Nor did Saddam have the slightest influence on the bureaucratic setup arranged by the US to delay and make expensive supplies not embargoed completely.

The consequences of those decisions were accurately foreseen, and the situation in Iraq understood by those who made them.

For example: The US bombed the sewer and water and electrical systems of the cities of Iraq, and embargoed the repair parts for them and the medical supplies for dealing with water-borne disease. That choice of strategy was entirely voluntary, conscious, and made with complete foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US is responsible for it, not Saddam.

Then why not take your own word for it, and save us both trouble ?
What fun would that be?

I was asserting that the US deserved blame (as the main actor in the UN's behavior) for the blockading of medical supplies, public health and related infrastructure needs, etc. You responded with a claim of "policy" countering that. So - - - what aren't you sure of ?

And you are including all the various people and sources quoted and linked there in that crowd ? If you note, few of those quotes depend on "honest assessments" of anything inside the whole of Iraq.

Regardless of what "most Iraqis" tell US soldiers about the evil Saddam, the question was whether the US, through the UN, blockaded medical and public health supplies, fertilizer, etc, for twelve years, with predicted and predictable, measurable and measured, effects. The answer is yes.

It was a seige. They're ugly.
The US deserves a share of blame for their implementation of the sanctions being incongruent with their intent. They were poorly administered by all. But there is a gulf of difference between validating those discrete events and extrapolating to their systemic impact country wide. You're using a biased sample to reach a hasty generalization, while at the same time ignoring Saddam's misallocation of resources on the distant end. Less than compelling.

But there is a gulf of difference between validating those discrete events and extrapolating to their systemic impact country wide. You're using a biased sample to reach a hasty generalization, while at the same time ignoring Saddam's misallocation of resources on the distant end. Less than compelling. Not discrete events, but ten years of consistent behavior, was "validated". It is impossible for Saddam to have misallocated supplies not delivered into Iraq.

The UN was in charge of distribution of a lot of stuff in northern Iraq, and UN observers on the ground (as well as WHO folks, the weapons inspectors, etc) supported the observations of widespread shortages in Iraq. As did the health statistics, of course.

The hypothesis that things like syringes and water pumps were "misallocated" inside Iraq needs explanation. To where, and whom, and for what advantage ?

And finally, no great storehouses of delivered stuff - like morphine, or blood transfusion bags, or chemo drugs, or chlorine, or pumps and generators and such, sufficient to account for more than ten years of "misallocation" - was discovered in the invasion, despite the propaganda coup that such a discovery would have been.

You can blame a lot on Saddam, but not the blockading of medical supplies and the rest (nor the bombing of the infrastructure in the first place, if it comes to that).

Then why not take your own word for it, and save us both trouble ? ”

What fun would that be? I'll keep the self-entertainment factor in mind, in future.