posted on September 1, 2002 06:58:57 PM new
With the One year Anniversary of the World Trade Center fast approaching us on Sept. 11, 2002. I’ll Bet anyone the USA will strike their attack against Iraq one week later on Sept 17, 2002 at 18:60 USA Time. The bombing will start on Tuesday and go on for three days. (Tues, Weds, Thurs) and then back on Saturday. Each strike will last from 2-4 hours a day. Iraq will then turnover all their records to the UN.
posted on September 2, 2002 05:38:13 AM new
Yesterday NPR was reporting more Republicans in Congress have spoken out against bombing. I think it was Hagler/Hegler? that suggested we should go along with the other nations and try other means first.
This however will not get Bush a military statue or revenge for his dad.
A world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony bin made use of by some other planet
Just Remove the sanctions and forget more bombs!!!!
Slide from the impossible to the apocalyptic
By Felicity Arbuthnot
A little over a month after the 1991 Gulf War, Maarti Ahtisaari, then UN special rapporteur, commented on conditions inside Iraq: 'Nothing we had heard or read could have prepared us for this particular devastation, a country reduced to a pre-industrial age, for a considerable time to come.'
Since Ahtisaari's remarks, Iraq has slid from the impossible to the apocalyptic. The Unicef report, State Of The World's Children (2001), rates the country 11 points below Eritrea, with the highest increase in infant mortality on earth.
Water-borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid, polio -- largely eradicated prior to 1990 -- have become epidemic. A child with dysentry in 1989 had a one-in-600 chance of dying. By 1999 it was one in 50. Had the weapons inspectors (Unscom) in their search for biological weapons turned on any tap in Iraq, they would have found them.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that each month an average of 5000 children aged under five die as a result of 'embargo-related causes'. Last December, 11,500 people died, the majority of them children.
By 1993 doctors had made a new diagnosis. With inflation stratospheric the price of staple foods rose by up to 11,000 times. Malnourishment became rampant. Mothers too weak to breastfeed, and unable to afford milk powder, fed babies sugared water or tea. They became wasted, bloated and almost all died. Doctors called them the 'sugar babies'.
'Time is running out for the children of Iraq,' wrote Dieter Hannusch of the World Food Programme in 1995. Time ran out for seven-year-old Yasmin that year. Diagnosed with a minor heart ailment in 1990, a small surgical procedure would correct it when facilities were restored. But in five years a minor ailment become a major one and her damaged heart failed her frail body.
'I hope they told her before she died that she had failed to comply with the United Nations embargo,' remarked an Iraqi friend with searing fury. Dignity in death too, is the embargo's victim -- shroud cloth and coffins have been vetoed by the UN Sanctions Committee
In Basra, Iraq's beautiful, battered southern city, decimated in Desert Storm, Dr Jenan Hussein's thesis compares the rate of cancers and birth abnormalities with those in Hiroshima. A quarter of live births now are of premature weight. In the Paediatric and Maternity Hospital, small faces, the haunted eyes of parents and the conditions haunt the stoniest heart.
When I returned after six months, Dr Hussein said hesitantly: 'You remember those children you wrote about in June? I am sorry, they have all died.'
They included 17 babies in the premature baby unit without even oxygen. Incubators too were vetoed.
The US and UK have bombed Iraq on an ongoing basis since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 -- and again we prepare to bomb the 'most traumatised child population on earth', according to experts.
Denial is rampant. One child told Count Hans von Sponeck, who succeeded Denis Halliday as UN aid co-ordinator, that when the bombs come: 'I play the piano so I can't hear them.'
An eight-year-old said that when the bombing starts: 'My father goes outside and stands by the gate to protect our house.'
One doctor reached on a crackly line inside Iraq said: 'I can cope with anything now, patients who die for want of simple treatment, operating without anaesthetics. What I cannot cope with is the children's fear. When the bombing starts I swear that I can hear the cries of every child, in every house in every street in the entire neighbour hood.'
This psychological effect permeates every level of life. It would seem the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child lies in the mass grave of the children of Iraq -- some report a million and rising -- who die of 'embargo-related causes'.
Now America again threatens to attack a country with no functioning fire engines, no disaster provision, and where even radios for ambulances are vetoed. In 1991, General Norman Schwartzkopf boasted of a 'turkey shoot' for the Allied forces inside Iraq. This time, we will be bombing a sitting duck.
posted on September 3, 2002 06:20:46 AM new
Yeah, that article is really misplacing the blame. America has always been strong advocates for children. The truth is, Saddam Insano is misapropriating Iraq's resources.
Instead of building up public services like water and sewage plants ect, he is spending the nation's resources on secret illegal weapons factories and supporting terrorists. How much money has he given to terrorists that could have saved the lives of Iraq's children?
How much you think it costs to run one of those terrorist training camps? Double it. For every fanatic in the camp, there is one less person working to improve his people's condition.
posted on September 3, 2002 08:22:24 AM new
You got to feel sorry for the guy. Because of the sanctions he has to pay top dollar for outmoded weapons. Everybody else get's wholesale.
Helen
The UN lets Iraq ship billions of barrels of oil for billions of dollars for the poor children of Iraq. Since Hussein chooses not to provide for them I don't see how your proposal "fixes" the problem.
posted on September 3, 2002 09:55:55 AM new
Well said DeSquirrel! The money his country takes in is phenominal. He also is good at asking for huge loans from other countries and not repaying them, adding to HIS wealth. If there was some way to hit him and not touch the Iraqis, I'd be all for it, but I still feel the U.S. is putting the horse before the cart with bombing them.
posted on September 3, 2002 10:48:46 AM new
Are you suggesting that bombing Iraq again is the answer? What is your "proposal"?
Of course I don't have any sympathy for Saddam! I am thinking about the people. They aren't evil.
Changing the policy of sanctions will make a difference to the poor people in Iraq. The oil for food program currently totals only $177 per person PER YEAR and food relief alone can't make up for a devastated infrastructure. We've already bombed the water system and pumping and sanitation systems. Untreated sewage flows into rivers which is used for drinking water. Bombs have already destroyed hospitals and electricity - generating plants
Lifting sanctions is a good beginning to ease this human catastrophe. Establishing employment, health care, electric power clean water, sanitation, agriculture will follow. Perhaps instead of enforcing sanctions, the UN can focus on these goals.
It's crazy to think that bombing the country into further destruction while killing millions of people will further humanitarian goals.
posted on September 3, 2002 11:14:18 AM new
The first thing you have to do is ask yourself: just how stupid are we?
1) A 2-bit dictator purposely targets his own people to gain a political end.
And the answer is we cave in? I don't think so.
Some people are even wacky enough to propose we now have to feed Zimbabwe because the 2-bit dictator there appropriated all the farmland and gave it to his cronies (who by the way will need legions of "serfs" to run those farms). In a country that should be a food EXPORTER.
"What is your "proposal"?"
1) Kick the door in.
2) Find a good stout tree for Hussein
3) Crush his party and all Hussein wannabees.
4) Temporarily set up a UN administered government to rebuild.
5) Pay for it all, plus our expenditures out of the oil revenues.
posted on September 4, 2002 11:21:36 AM new
Hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...it has just occurred to me that Sept. 17th is primary election day . It would be just like Bush to do something to disrupt on that day....there is a lot at stake in this election.
posted on September 13, 2002 09:10:54 PM new
Iteresting, they just had a news report about legions of Dems joining in on the President's Plan. AND Aziz just said they refuse to allow inspectors back! Intelligence data is being shown to Congress and our allies about Iraqi weapon programs. Things are moving.
posted on September 13, 2002 09:43:41 PM new
Let's invaade Iraq and take over the oil fields. I'd like to see gas at .35 again. Besides we could take over his banks and feed all the children. That would make Helen happy.
posted on September 14, 2002 05:49:01 AM new
Valleygirl
<<"Let's invaade Iraq and take over the oil fields. I'd like to see gas at .35 again. Besides we could take over his banks and feed all the children. That would make Helen happy.">>
Your knowledge base on this issue and several others is unfortunately limited so please don't presume to know what would make Helen happy.
Actually, it would make Helen happy if you never mention my name again.
posted on September 17, 2002 01:07:03 PM new
What if it turns out he is right? What a kick. He could get a job on SciFi Channel and kick off Jon Edwards.
Of course we will never let him forget it if it happens at 1900 hours. WAIT A MINUTE.....18:60 IS 1900 hours.........
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on September 17, 2002 01:18:14 PM new
He IS going to be "right", because US and British planes bomb constantly. Every time the Iraqi's move AA missles into the "no-fly zones" or switch on targeting radars, those sites get bombed.
posted on September 17, 2002 06:11:51 PM new
The war really began long ago..
They haven't bothered to report, for instance, that the war against Iraq has already begun. Last week the US and UK together hit the largest air-defense installation in western Iraq - a mission that involved 100 jets. At the same time, "we" began the largest military build-up in that region since the start of Operation Desert Shield twelve years ago. Neither story was reported by a single mainstream news source in this country. "Despite the assurances of President George Bush and Tony Blair that 'no decisions' had been made on how to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, compelling evidence has emerged in the past week that the US has begun a military build-up not seen since the last Gulf war," reported the Observer, which, along with the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and, in Canada, the National Post, among other foreign press outlets, has duly covered what should be big news, but isn't news at all, in these United States, whose soldiers - and civilians - are the ones who stand to suffer once this war begins.
"The more that Iraq dominates front pages, magazine covers, news broadcasts and cable channels, the less space there is for such matters as the intensifying retirement worries of many Americans, the Wall Street scandals, and specific stories about entanglements that link Bush or Dick Cheney with malodorous corporate firms like Enron, Harken and Halliburton.
In August, the "healthy debate" over Iraq has displaced a range of negative economic stories from the top of the news. Bush's advisers would hardly mind if a similar pattern held through early November.
For the next couple of months, the president has domestic political incentives to keep "wagging the puppy" while floating a variety of unsubstantiated claims -- like references to wispy dots that implausibly connect the Iraqi dictatorship and al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, sending more ships and aircraft to the Persian Gulf region can be calculated to evoke plenty of televised support-our-troops spectacles. With Old Glory in the background as tearful good-byes are exchanged at U.S. military ports and bases, how many politicians or journalists will challenge the manipulative tactics of the commander-in-chief?
Even if the White House doesn't sic the Pentagon on Iraqi people before the November elections, its efforts to boost pre-war fever between now and then could have enormous media impacts with big dividends at the polls. This fall, our country may see something short of a "wag the dog" extravaganza provided by leading officials of the Bush administration. But unless we can stop them, the full-grown dogs of war are not far behind."
posted on September 17, 2002 07:17:49 PM new
There has been no secret. They've been rebuilding a base in Qatar for months not "recently", in case Saudi refuses access to the bases there. It's been in OUR newspapers many, many times. The military ports near here have been humming. All according to the announced planning and logistics. You thought Bush was lying????
posted on September 18, 2002 08:04:37 AM new
"Its", or more accurately, the d u p l i c i t y has been in our papers too...so true, Linda_K. As you so often say I "totally agree". LOL!
Rumsfeld is now pleading with congress for a war that has already begun. That's duplicitous. Then we will approach the UN as if we really give a dam and continue with the war no matter what their decision.
That's worse than duplicitous.
So true....