Post here if you want to describe Kuciwalker

[giblets]

You need to look at exactly what Iraq could not export. It was not a ban on Iraq exports entirely, dumbass.

Should I go with your word or the text of the UN resolutions? Decisions, decisions...

resolution 661: "all States shall prevent . . . The import into their territories of all commodities and products originating in Iraq or Kuwait exported therefrom after the date of the present resolution; "

[Ecofarm]

Pertinent to the resolution.

And this resolution was drawn during war. It does not represent the later sanctions against Iraq.

Iraq was in violation of 17 (SEVENTEEN) Chapter 7 UNSC Resolutions (each resulting in sanctions) at the time of invasion. You are looking at one war-time resolution and not even the sanctions claimed to have caused starvation.


The sanctions that some claim caused starvation are those that prohibited Iraq's import of chlorine and other indirect-sanitary chemicals that Saddam could have weaponized. After the anthrax vaccination thing, we pulled back on a little of the questionable stuff we gave him.

If you're going to make the lame argument, at least get the right sanctions.

[giblets]

Okay, gave the wrong link for 687. Here it is: http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm

Drawn up after the war. Continuing the sanctions enacted during the war until certain conditions are met, conditions that Saddam didn't meet. Banned import of oil from Iraq.

[Ecofarm]

In practice, the Iraqi government did not disclose notable weapons stockpiles and programs, including biological weapons discovered by inspectors in 1995. Despite numerous UN resolutions, inspectors were not allowed access to various "presidential" sites and in 1998, the inspections ceased entirely and the inspectors went home. Iraq did not comply with other key aspects of 687 and other UN resolutions including return of Kuwaiti prisoners and property.

UN SC Resolution 1284 of December 17, 1999 established UNMOVIC to replace UNSCOM.

Additional Security Council Resolutions concerning the further history of the UNSCOM commission established for inspections under this resolution are available online at the UN Web site.

I've had enough. Good day.

I should note, the inspectors (both IAEA and Human Rights) might not have been kicked out for 10 years. I was pretty sure it was 1991 - 2001, but the above says inspections were attempted in the late 90s.



If you want to think the US was wrong in trying to stop and decrown a genocidal dictator... whatever. I'm sure we should have let the genocidal dictator do whatever the fk he wanted.

[giblets]

What the hell are you going on about now? I never said Saddam was innocent. Just said he wasn't the only guilty party...

[giblets]

If you want to think the US was wrong in trying to stop and decrown a genocidal dictator... whatever. I'm sure we should have let the genocidal dictator do whatever the fk he wanted.

Yeah, then we wouldn't have had 400,000 kids die of malnutrition and 400,000+ civilians die in a war... how sad.

[Ecofarm]

We didn't ask for a genocidal dictator to deal with.

Jeez dude, do you always blame the victims?




Again, let's look at the per year stat (going back only to late 80s, not including the Iraq Iran War)... Saddam FAR exceeds us.


Your argument boils down to: It's better to let a genocidal dictator kill 80,000 per year over decades than for us to kill 10,000 per year over one decade stopping him and installing democracy. It's ludicrous on its face.

Next, you'll be claiming we should have just let the Nazi thing go its course. Or maybe we should not prosecute anyone for anything... you know... if it feels good, do it in the street. Is that your idea? Noone should be stopped from doing anything?


Because if you cannot get behind stopping a genocidal dictator, then you might as well join the legion of doom.

[giblets]

We didn't ask for a genocidal dictator to deal with.

Jeez dude, do you always blame the victims?




Again, let's look at the per year stats. Saddam FAR exceeds us.

Blaming the victims would be blaming Iraqis, not teh US. Duh. And it would appear that the US was a contributing factor in Saddam's stats...

[giblets]

Your argument boils down to: It's better to let a genocidal dictator kill 80,000 per year over decades than for us to kill 10,000 per year over one decade stopping him and installing democracy. It's ludicrous on its face.

Those numbers are ludicrous.

[Ecofarm]

250,000 Kurds
50,000 Marsh Arabs
400,000 Children
/
~10 years = 80,000/year, not including political murders and personal fun.


Civilian casualities in war = 200,000? That's 20k/year.


Then let's talk about freedom.


By the way, I'm still waiting for convincing evidence that Saddam would not have continued as he always had. We should weight those likely deaths additionally against the collateral.

[giblets]

First you said 400,000 died in the Iraq war. (400,000 deaths/7 years = ~57,000 deaths/year) And why give Saddam full blame for the 400,000 children that starved?

[Ecofarm]

Well, I did say 400,000 civilians dead in the war. Then I said "200,000?"

Perhaps you would like to agree on a number? Otherwise, the ballparks will do. After all, we're looking at almost a factor of power difference and we're exlcuding likely deaths between 2003 and now resulting from genocide/etc.

Saddam gets the full blame for the 400,000 children because thats how many children would have lived off the products we found in other countries that were sold at pawn-prices instead. Unless Saddam put some of his pawn money towards buying formula, baby food and vitamins for kids at 4x the price he started paying (under 'oil for food'), they are all his and there is nothing to subtract. Maybe he reinvested that pawn money into food for children, but I doubt it - since that's where he was devaluing it from in the first place.

[giblets]

By the way, I'm still waiting for convincing evidence that Saddam would not have continued as he always had. We should weight those likely deaths additionally against the collateral.

That's retarded. The deaths prior to 2003 would have happened whether we invaded or not. The collateral damage should only be compared with what we think Saddam would have done starting 2003. (his past actions are relevant because they're our basis for estimating what he would have done)

[giblets]

Saddam gets the full blame for the 400,000 children because thats how many children would have lived off the products we found in other countries that were sold at pawn-prices instead. Unless Saddam put some of his pawn money towards buying formula, baby food and vitamins for kids at 4x the price he started paying (under 'oil for food'), they are all his and there is nothing to subtract.

Now you're assuming no one would have starved if Saddam hadn't diverted any food, and asserting that the UN's corruption and partial responsibility for the embargo's existence deserve none of the blame.

[Ecofarm]

That's retarded. The deaths prior to 2003 would have happened whether we invaded or not. The collateral damage should only be compared with what we think Saddam would have done starting 2003. (his past actions are relevant because they're our basis for estimating what he would have done)

The deaths prior to 2003 are his, granted - we agree. It establishes a killing rate than can be reasonably expected to continue throughout his tenure, given that the breaks in slaughters were very few and very far between.

So, we can weigh the damage he did, for sure, against the damage we did, for sure. We can even do this on a per year basis.

But can we also include the damage he might have done? What is entirely unreasonable is assuming that 2003+ would have been golden years for Iraqi freedom and prosperity... and not also counting those years in our favor (as historical evidence would dictate).

Now you're assuming no one would have starved if Saddam hadn't diverted any food, and asserting that the UN's corruption and partial responsibility for the embargo's existence deserve none of the blame.

Not at all.

I'm only counting the number of children that would have been fed from 'oil for food' child-food products we found that Saddam sold on the black market. And assuming that none of the black market money went back into child food at 4x original cost.