From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 03:54:05 MST
[Hermit 1] Actually, the money is for external, not internal payments and is
never "distributed" as money, so it can't be "distributed unfairly" or even
spent "incorrectly". This idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the
"Oil for Food" program and the swallowing of the idea that Saddam has
"diverted funds" - which would imply that he is responsible for this
process. This is just plain wrong. Refer
[url]http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/[/url]. Citing resolution 986, "To finance
the export to Iraq, in accordance with the procedures of the Committee
established by resolution 661 (1990), of medicine, health supplies,
foodstuffs, and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, as
referred to in paragraph 20 of resolution 687 (1991)..." and the
distribution is certified by the "United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian
Programme." Thus the distribution policy is determined by the UN Security
Council, not by Iraq.
[Joe Dees 2] But all Iraq has to do, and what they are doing, is to sell
such items to neighboring countries and spend the cash on military pursuits.
Plus they smuggle oil.
[Hermit 2] Please read Resolution 661
[url]http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/scrs/scr986.htm[/url] before you make an
ass of yourself.
[Hermit 2] Your allegation that "Iraq" is selling materials obtained under
the "oil for food" plan, is ridiculous, as the aid is distributed directly
by the UN and carefully monitored by the UN - at immense cost. If the Iraqi
recipients are selling it to "neighboring countries" (where did you get that
from?), I guess that is free enterprise is at work and they are selling it
in order to buy items they consider more valuable - bottled water and
medicines perhaps.
[Hermit 2] Please note clause 18. Iraq remains sovereign. In terms of
International law, Iraq is entitled to sell their oil to anyone prepared to
buy it or transport it. The onus is on other nations not to buy it. But
sanctions are easy to bust. As a by the way, the records show that the US
bought a lot more South African steel under sanctions, when they were the
largest buyers, than they did after the sanctions were lifted (when the
prices went up). Of course, the cost of sanctions can still be seen in the
South African economy. Iraq's problem is even more severe, they are not
short of willing buyers, it is that their drilling and recovery equipment
(which they cannot replace) is failing and their wells (the second largest
proven reserves) are "freezing" and will eventually become useless, due to
under utilization. So they can't even pump what they are entitled to sell.
But every dollar sold "under the table" gives them a far better return than
oil sold through the U.N. so I am sure they are doing their best to make
such arrangements.
[Hermit 1] What is desperately needed is the delivery of appropriate
chemicals and equipment to get the water purification and sewage processing
infrastructure working again (and as they are partially reliant on PEM
technology, getting at least enough of the power infrastructure working to
operate the pumps and processing equipment. The reasoning behind the denial
of access is pure "slippery slope" taking to extremes. While there is a
"possibility" that some of the needed supplies or equipment could be
diverted to "dual-use" the probability is close to non-existent. Chemical
weapons are not particularly effective at the best of times, and without a
means to deliver them in vast quantities, any damage they do would be
symbolic. Denying access to water purification and sewage treatment is
causing vast number of deaths - no "slippery slope" about it, and impossible
to transfer the responsibility to a third party - not even to such a
convenient "evil" scapegoat as Saddam.
[Joe Dees 2] Actually, chlorine is a manufacturing component of several
chemical agents, and I'm quite sure that the Kurdish village that we
received the pictures from (especially heartrending was the dead Kurdish
mother cradling her dead newborn child) would heartily disagree, if the
villagers were still alive (instead of actually, not symbolically, dead),
that such weapons are ineffective and merely 'symbolic'.
[Hermit 2] Anything that Iraq has done to the Kurds (who were and are
terrorists) has been matched and outdone by our "valued allies" the Turks.
Even more poignant, it is vastly exceeded by the proven efficiencies of
American weapons against Iraqi civilians. Examine the demonstrated PoK
(Probability of Kill) for the chemical weapons deployed. In one documented
case, the attack on the unprotected town of Halabja in 1988, Iraq took two
days of flights and the dropping of thousands of chemical and cluster bomb
weapons by two squadrons - to kill 5,000 villagers out of 70,000. Had the
villagers even used burkhas and wet towels to improvise shelter, far more
could have saved themselves. Against this, a single flight of conventional
bombers dropping HE, followed by incendiaries and then cluster bombing the
survivors would have killed a lot more - and, as the US has demonstrated, a
fuel-air explosion delivered by three multi-role ground-attack aircraft
could have killed over 50% of the population in a single attack. Which makes
the same point as I did, but more nastily. Chemical weapons are not
efficient or cost effective - except as a threat to conventional forces, as
the threat of chemical weapons is sufficient to force the defending forces
to take precautions all the time, which greatly impedes movements and leads
to combat stress as the defenders are constantly reminded of their potential
vulnerability. It is worth noting that the attack was "tribal", and was
prompted by suspicions that the residents had collaborated with Iranian
forces who had just captured the area. Concentration camps might have been a
more effective solution - and as Turkey and Iran have shown would probably
have been more lethal and nobody would have complained.
[Hermit 2] As to the claim of Chlorine as a precursor, Iraq has deployed
three kinds of chemical weapons, neurotoxins, mustard gas and cyanide.
Cyanide has been responsible for the vast majority of deaths. Chlorine is
not a component of Cyanide weapons. Neurotoxins are not usually made from
raw chlorine (although chlorine is a likely ingredient), are tricky to
manufacture and trickier to store which might explain why despite their
theoretical lethality under optimum conditions, they have been least used.
Mustard gas, undoubtedly the least lethal, but cheapest, does require
chlorine as a precursor, but as Germany and the UK demonstrated during WWI,
its very low PoK is such that vast amounts of it have to be used to achieve
even moderate kill rates. I just don't see this as a believable argument,
especially as Iraq does not have the means of deploying chemical weapons
effectively (much more difficult than building them).
[Richard Ridge 1] 1). Lift the sanctions. The US has done deals with morally
repugnant regimes before; I have little doubt that they are perfectly
capable of doing so again.
[Joe Dees 2] But this morally repugnant regime is actively pursuing the
means to kill Americans and to conquer its neighbors. That's a bit
different, security-wise, than turning a blind eye towards a regime that
only seeks to subjugate its own people, although, that, too, is ethically
disturbing.
[Hermit 2] Your joke is in poor taste. According to the "U.S. Chemical and
Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible
Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", (Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export
Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994),
[quote]From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of
biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers
pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal
cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
…
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the
1980s.
...
These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable
of reproduction.
...
It was later learned, that these microorganisms exported by the United
States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and
removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.
…
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that
Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly
biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early
80s.[/quote]
[Hermit 2] In 1990 the US said that Iraq was an important ally, a barrier
against Iranian fundamentalism. Meantime Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.
Saddam Hussein a small time tribal leader did what small time tribal leaders
do when they are stolen from, having checked with Washington whether it was
ok. Washington effectively said, "we don't care" and he went ahead and beat
up Kuwait. American politicians might have seen this as a "threat to the
world", but to military observers it was a joke. Saddam Hussein could never
have successfully attacked Saudi Arabia. He had neither the men nor the
material to do so. Saudi Arabia knew it, Israel knew it, Turkey knew it,
Iran knew it, even he knew it. But the US political view, always in terms of
"powers" rather than of "princes" meant that the US did not know it - his
actions and intentions were misconstrued. Six months later, Iraq, one of the
world's smaller nations, paid the price of this misunderstanding and was
"knocked back to the stone-age" by the US, the world's largest. And that has
had severe repercussions for the US in foreign relations. Since then the US
has caused the death of over 1 million Iraqi and claims that Iraq is a
threat to her neighbors persist. Such claims are nonsense.
[Hermit 2] Meanwhile, Iraq, and area larger than California is difficult to
"prove clean", which is what the US appears to be demanding prior to
allowing sanctions to be lifted.
[Hermit 2] It may be instructive to contrast what the US is demanding of
Iraq, still a sovereign nation, in terms of inspections, and the U.S. Senate
implementation of the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction" (Short title: Chemical Weapons Convention). The Senate act,
Section 307, stipulates "the President may deny a request to inspect any
facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that
the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the
United States." Section 303 further states that "Any objection by the
President to an individual serving as an inspector ... shall not be
reviewable in any court." Both of these clauses echo repeated complaints
from Iraq - which the US claims is invalid. I think that from Iraq's
perspective the US is regarded as rogue - and that sanctions which are seen
as emanating from a nation which has dropped more munitions on Iraq than it
dropped on Germany and Japan combined during WWII, performed more damage to
Iraq in terms of percentage of infrastructure destroyed than was achieved
against Germany and Japan during WWII, and has killed far more Iraqis than
Iraq has killed anywhere are not particularly worthy of respect. I'm not
sure that Iraq is wrong.
[Hermit 1] According to the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme the
sanctions imposed by the Security council has killed far more people (over 1
million to date) than anything done by Saddam Hussein and the moral
responsibility is ours, not theirs.
[Joe Dees 2] I disagree, for the reasons that both Richard and I have amply
provided. This is something that Saddam does to his own people becuase 1)
it frees more money to pursue WMD's and military upgrades and 2) the
resultant deaths can be blamed on the US, and the naïve, superficial and
credulous will be taken in by such claims, especially when they dovetail
with their own economic interests.
[Hermit 2] Please support your assertions. I do not find this in the UN
reports, nor in Jane's analysis, nor in the published NWC analyses all of
which I follow.
[Hermit 1] It is my considered opinion that the sanctions will never cause
his overthrow, and that recent actions taken to pursue other heads of state
after they have left office will ensure that he will never willingly
relinquish power without some quite exceptional guarantees of immunity. Then
too, not only has the US dealt with - and is dealing with "morally repugnant
regimes", it might well be argued that our actions in respect of Iraq and
the Kurds have made us a "morally repugnant regime". Moral issues should not
enter into the affairs of nations as morals are essentially locally defined
and are not recognized in International law.
[Joe Dees 2] Then let's morally unrepugnantize ourselves, by assisting the
Kurds and Shiites in ridding the skin of Gaia of this crepuscular bastard,
and remaining engaged in order to help guide and assist a post-Saddam Iraq
towards a free, fair and responsible society. If the Kurdish and Shiite
minorities were treated in an egalitarian fashion inn Iraq, they would not
itch so much for secession and self-rule there.
[Hermit 2] You don't have the right to do that and besides it would not be
sensible. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and the US claims to being offended by
the attack on NY were that they were an attack on her sovereignty.
Suggesting that the nations ignore the sovereignty of others is what got the
world into the mess that formed the period 1850-1950 and even beyond. Or why
we formed the UN. The age of gunboats is past. We live in an age with the
potential at least to be reasonable. What you suggest is not reasonable.
[Hermit 2] If as seems likely, the US will shortly withdraw from Saudi
Arabia, (having already quietly removed all her strike-capable aircraft at
the Kingdom's request and it being very unlikely that they will be allowed
to return), it seems that we will be needing Turkey more than ever if we
wish to retain any sort of strike capability in the area. Offending Turkey
by siding with the Kurds, particularly just as the EU is about to determine
the validity of Ocelan's death sentence (which may well trigger a further
round of Kurdish terrorism) would not be sensible.
[Hermit 2] Perhaps the reason I am having trouble conveying why these
sanctions are so wrong to you, is that I think that you have no idea of the
suffering caused by these sanctions, even less idea of how ingenuity
explodes in the face of opposition or even of how the US has strengthened
Saddam Hussein and allowed him to draw on his populations "patriotism" and
their refusal to bow in the face of adversity. Imagining that Saddam is
hated and that the US would be seen as a liberator were you to go to war
with Iraq again is a triumph of rationalization over reason. To the average
Iraqi, America is not just the devil, America is now the hated enemy. If the
average Iraqi had the power to make your children die in exchange for
theirs, I suspect they would. And those who identify with the Iraqi are
reacting the same way.
[Hermit 2] Our actions to now have been - and are - counter pragmatic.
[Hermit 1] Requiring some other nation or nations to put their soldiers at
risk and undoubtedly causing the deaths of more civilians.
[Joe Dees 2] And how many of our civilians will be lost because of
trepidatious hesitation? You made some of the same arguments concerning
Afghanistan (remember the Rudyard Kipling poem you quoted concerning
Afghanistan's plains, and your dire predictions that we'd end up like
britain and the USSR?), and were soundly proven wrong; others made them
prior to the Gulf War with iraq and were proven soundly wrong as well. If
anything, toppling Saddam would be easier than toppling the Taliban.
[Hermit 2] You are making very invalid assertions about Afghanistan. Far
from doing what you predicted, and what I warned against, the US did exactly
as I and countless others with military experience considered sensible. They
performed a stand-off war. In my opinion they suffered a great deal less
than I would have suggested, and in consequence achieved a great deal less
than they should have. The cost for not being prepared to close with the
enemy is yet to be paid. Remember that there should be 40,000 to 60,000
killed or captured Taliban/Al Q'aida by even the most optimistic estimates
prior to the war. Where are they?
[Hermit 2] Afghanistan is probably more dangerous than ever, we do not
control the ground (and are not attempting to) as people with far more
military sense than you appear to have demonstrated to date, agree exactly
with my estimation. It is still a highly lethal environment for US troops.
At this time we are still only conducting very limited area security
operations and that at great risk and to little effect.
[Joe Dees 2] So far, Afghanistan is proceesing exactly as intended, with the
exception that we don't have everyone we want in custody - yet. I sincerely
believe that the dancing in the streets that was observed in Afghanistan
would be repeated in Iraq, once its citizens were freed from the oppressive
yoke of that two-bit satrap despot. As long as the international community
does it right; i.e. remains envolved and engaged in the rehabilitation of
Iraq, I do not see them backsliding into fanaticism, any more than I see
iran invading with the coalition troops we would place on the ground in Iraq
to assist Kurdish and Shiite forces (they certainly didn't dare to do so in
Afghanistan,
and there is not much love lost between Iran and their neighbors on EITHER
side).
[Hermit 2] Let me remind you of what we have accomplished, I was going to
write, "what we have not accomplished", but recognized that things have
changed. Perhaps worth starting with Abdul Haq's advice to the US before his
death that bombing of Afghanistan was unnecessary and a grave mistake. He
believed that Taliban control could be broken, where needed, by financing
tribal uprisings - the standard form of Afghan warfare - without foreign
intervention. Otherwise, he warned, the Northern Alliance would take over
and bring in the Russians. He pleaded with Washington for restraint, but to
no avail. Haq was captured by Taliban during a bungled CIA operation and
hanged. But Haq was right. While the US bombed 160,000 plus Afghans into
refugee camps, killed some 2,000 civilians, far fewer Taliban and almost no
Al Q'aida members, and then hunted for bin Laden, the Bush Administration
was apparently too preoccupied to notice that its new best friend, Russia,
had broken its agreement to wait for formation of a pro-US, pro-Pakistani
regime, and seized half of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance, armed and
funded by Russia, directed by the Afghan Communist Party, and under the
overall command of the Chief of the Russian General Staff, Marshall Viktor
Kvashnin, deputy KGB director Viktor Komogorov, and a cadre of Russian
advisors, seized Kabul and all of northern Afghanistan, likely with the aid
of troops from Uzbekistan and/or Iran, just as he outfoxed the Americans in
1999 in a similar coup de main in Kosovo. No wonder they were dancing in the
streets! I was tempted to laugh myself. The much ballyhooed Afghan "unity"
conference in Germany produced a sham "coalition" government run by the
Northern Alliance. The 87-year old deposed Afghan King, Zahir Shah, widely
blamed for allowing the communists to infiltrate Afghanistan in the 1970's,
was invited back as a figurehead monarch. The very next day, feuding broke
among Alliance members. Old communist stalwart Rashid Dostam, who had just
finished massacring hundreds of Taliban prisoners with American and British
help, threatened war if his Uzbeks did not get more spoils. The Alliance's
figurehead president, Prof. Rabbani, a respected Islamic scholar, was shoved
aside by young communists. One of CIA's Pushtun "assets", Hamid Karzai, who
represents no one but himself, was named prime minister. There was no other
real Pushtun representation, though they comprise half the population. Of
thirty cabinet seats, two thirds went to Northern Alliance Tajiks, notably
the power ministries: defense, interior, and foreign affairs. Two women were
added for window dressing to please the west.
[Hermit 2] In short, we now have a communist-dominated regime, ruled by a
king, whose strings are pulled by Moscow and with 40% of the country
unrepresented. Quite a bizarre creation. Especially when we consider that
this was only possible courtesy of current American ineptitude and
ignorance. IMO it will take quite a while for the full fruits of this
exercise to become visible. Right now, it is visibly a severe geopolitical
defeat for American ambitions to use Afghanistan as a gateway to Central
Asian oil and gas, and while the "evil" Taliban is gone, the Communists are
in power in Kabul, the south of Afghanistan is in chaos, Pakistan is
isolated and unloved by all, Washington has spent $10 billion to date (and a
lot more to come if we keep our word) - and Mssrs Vladimir Putin and Ariel
Sharon are happily killing their own "terrorists". How much of this helps to
fight "evil", prevent further attacks on the US, avenge 911, or indeed to
achieve any other stated US aim is yet to be explained.
[Hermit 1] Agreed. There are perhaps other options available however, if the
International community were able to resolve its own problems*. Not the
least of which is working on how to restore a country which we have
deliberately destabilized and "sent back to the stone age", when we know
that progress, industrialization and a strong middle class go hand in hand;
and that stone-age cultures result in stone-age brutality.
[Joe Dees 2] Nope, just take him out and Marshall Plan the place. I believe
that such action could earn us the same gratitude with which we are graced
from Japan and Western europe, and which even now is growing in Afghanistan.
[Hermit 2] We have yet to understand what has happened in Afghanistan. I
cannot comprehend how you can advocate taking out the evil president of
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and yet be upset when he returns the compliment to the
US. Do you have two standards here perhaps? As for being welcome in Iraq, I
would find it difficult to welcome somebody whose actions killed my
children. I am guessing that there are perhaps a few million Iraqis who
would prefer to welcome Americans with bullets than with gratitude. I am not
sure about the sanity of a mind that could think that anyone would think
otherwise. "I love the Americans, they killed my child to rid me of an evil
oppressor"? An "evil oppressor" that now has more support than when the
sanctions began... courtesy of sanctions that gave Iraq a visible enemy on
whom to blame all their travails, and fosters the growth of a religion that,
like most religions, explains that no matter how fucked-up the world may
look, that everything will be alright in the next world as long as you kill
the people who can do this kind of thing first.
[Hermit 1] This almost certainly means working with Saddam Hussein and in
the long term, almost certainly having to provide him and his near
associates with guarantees of immunity. Personally, I would advocate that
this route be explored. Of course, having demonized Saddam Hussein for over
a decade, this might seem a little less than likely. I find it difficult to
conceive of either of the two Bs having the imagination, or their citizens
providing much in the way of support. Strange in a way, since we have had
the benefits of Niccolo Machiavelli's thinking on Princes and Powers for
over 500 years (but I doubt that he is Blair's favorite author, and we know
that Bush is not much of a reader).
[Joe Dees 2] Our history has shown us that if you deal with the devil you
risk getting singed. I say that we de-demonize Iraq by excising the demons
in charge there.
[Hermit 2] The only things that we learn from history are that America is no
exception to the general rule that we don't, and that people playing the
Devil, seldom see themselves in that role.
[Hermit 1] I suspect that while an international body with appropriate
technological and financial capability, together with effective teeth, could
transform the world in under 40 years, I don't see the vision or the
political will to form such a body coming from existing politicians or their
UTic populations.
[Joe Dees 2] When a nation has decided that you are THEM and singlemindedly
endeavors to terrorize your citizens and assassinate your leaders, simply
maintaining a pollyannish pair of rose-colored glasses on one's foreign
relations nose will not deter the horrendous spectacles almost surely to
follow.
[Hermit 2] Notes that pragmatism and rose-colored spectacles are
diametrically opposed. Joe, when you terrorize a people, others who identify
with them may reciprocate. I suggest that much of the world recognizes US
action in Iraq as terrorism. When you adopt a policy of assassination as
policy, it tends to be reciprocated too. And I suggest that much of the
world recognizes that the US holds such a policy. On these scores, the US
appears to have blood on its hands (and in consequence, we appear to have a
convenient non-disposable target on our back). Perhaps more respect for law
and sovereignty would also be reciprocated, perhaps it is too late for that.
I am sure that a more pragmatic approach, dealing with the issues we
[i]know[/i] cause hatred, like income disparity, injustice and intolerance,
all issues where we could make a difference, seems more likely to yield
beneficial results for ourselves, than approaches which exacerbate the
problems of the world.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT