posted on September 18, 2002 08:38:46 AM new
Helen - We're on different sides of this issue, obviously. No problem.
I do think we 'give a damn' about the UN getting a backbone and enforcing their previously made decisions. Otherwise, what's the point of their existance? After Bush's speech, you saw how many [countries] agreed with what he said to the UN.
So...first their reaction was NO WAY. Then they see the support/backing of Bush's statement to the UN and then Saddam agrees to the inspections. Now [last I read] he's only willing to allow these inspections on his military bases...no where else. This has been an ongoing issue with Saddam. He has agreed many times and then changed his mind. Time and time again. If he'd have totally, unlimited inspections Bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He won't.
I also see this as a decision that has to be made in the best interests of our country's safety. To me it doesn't really matter if the UN decides they want to allow this process to take months or years, AGAIN.
It's not like Saddam hasn't had plenty of time to do as the UN directed 4 years ago.
posted on September 18, 2002 08:47:21 AM new
There is an internet page that lists the history of previous UN "inspections" of Iraq. What Hussein pulled was absolutely laughable considering he was just crushed militarily.
posted on September 18, 2002 09:09:56 AM new
Yes, DeSquirrel - And during the last set of inspections it has been reported that the inspectors did find many violations of the UN directive. Supposedly these were destroyed. But one UN inspector stated he believed that within 6 months they could be replaced.
Iraq's refusal [for the last four years] to continue to allow inspections is one reason the UN voted for sanctions. But those same people who are so against the sanctions put in place by the UN, don't seem to 'see' that this choice has always been with Saddams power to change. They don't seem to 'see' that the UN requirements were to protect the world from a madman having these capabilities. This hasn't been something the US alone has been worried about.
One UN inspector said at the time the UN pulled out of Iraq that it would only take them 6 months or so to rebuild what they were forced to destroy.
No, Linda. It's people like you who fail to see that the UN enforced sanctions against Saddam affect the poor children and people of Iran - NOT Saddam. By bombing the infrastructure of Iraq and destroying the water and electrical system and employing sanctions so that not even medical facilities can function, just who is affected? It's the poor children and people of Iraq - NOT Saddam. While thousands of children are drinking polluted water and dying, you want to bomb them yet again?
posted on September 18, 2002 10:22:06 AM new
...people like you who fail to see that the UN enforced sanctions against Saddam affect the poor children and people of Iran - NOT Saddam.
I don't fail to see who has and will suffer. I just place the blame where it belongs, IMO, at Saddam's feet. Your exact agrument is one of the reasons I agree with those who feel nothing short of a regime change will work. It will allow those same suffering people to enjoy a [different] leader who will be more interested in his people, rather than in building his own palaces.
posted on September 18, 2002 10:44:48 AM new
Helen
Get off the "destroyed infrastructure" kick. Not only wasn't the "infrastructure" destroyed to begin with, but the war was 10 YEARS ago. The UN allows Iraq to pump half the volume it did. That's hundreds of billions of dollars. There seems to be plenty of "infrastructure" to rebuild several huge palaces, continue wars against the Shiites and Kurds, and buy new weapons.
posted on September 18, 2002 11:21:44 AM new
DeSquirrel, Don't tell me where to get off, twerp. To discount this story as just something that happened 10 years ago is making light of a very serious situation to put it mildly.
BTW It happened during the administration of George Bush senior.
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."
The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."
Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.
"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater. "Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."
As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."
In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."
The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil. (I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.
The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."
The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."
The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."
posted on September 18, 2002 01:27:19 PM new
Too bad Iraq won't let the UN inspect and verify any of the claims the left-wingers love to embrace so easily. Even the UN uses the Iraqi figures because they are the only ones available. Hussein doesn't allow UN health inspectors in either. Interesting with all those starving babies around, Iraq is a food EXPORTER. Interesting also that in the Shiite and Kurdish areas not controlled by Hussein AND available to the WHO, infant mortality rates have DECLINED since the war. The infant death rate numbers also don't seem to jibe with population growh numbers also supplied by Iraq.
The UN sanction say what Hussein can buy and what he can't. The UN also has admonished the Iraqis for NOT buying certain things (one specific: baby formula). He seems to have no trouble buying military stuff on the black market.
