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.
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 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.
I would also be curious to see that sourced, because the sanctions pretty clearly did not restrict humanitarian goods as a matter of policy. 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.
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:
“ 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.
"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? Which Muslim nations helped forment the hatred of the US? Is there a particular reason for their hatred?
It's got something to do with "responsibility" - who was to blame, see ? 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.
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.
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 and here. 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.
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.
