The Cellar - View Single Post

Xugumad · 10-10-2002, 10:39 AM

In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically.

This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge.

One of the main targets in the Gulf War (and subsequent bombings) was Iraq's water infrastructure. With its destruction, the civilian population would be slowly poisoned. Madeleine Albright - in 1996 60 Minutes interview - unhappily admitted that the death of more than half a million Iraqi children was a high, but necessary price to pay.

Selected army intelligence quotations:

"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."

"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."

""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)."

"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)"

Links:
<a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html">Military document</a> outlining Iraq's water infrastructure, described further <a href="http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html">here</a>.

Good Lord, no, the US (and its allies, including Canada and the UK, let's make no mistake here) would never knowingly and directly target civilians. From a certain point of view, a nuclear bomb is a direct, relatively clean, quick, and painless death for a lot of people. Committing near-genocide through targeted disease and poverty is another thing altogether.

X.

PS: Tangential, but related to the 'targeting civilians' issue: Luckily the US would never knowingly use biochem weapons on its own people, <a href="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-171044620021009-071023.html">right</a>? <a href="http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html">Right</a>?

10-10-2002, 10:39 AM	#29
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically. This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge. One of the main targets in the Gulf War (and subsequent bombings) was Iraq's water infrastructure. With its destruction, the civilian population would be slowly poisoned. Madeleine Albright - in 1996 60 Minutes interview - unhappily admitted that the death of more than half a million Iraqi children was a high, but necessary price to pay. Selected army intelligence quotations: "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." "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." ""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)." "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks." "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation." "Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)" Links: <a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html">Military document</a> outlining Iraq's water infrastructure, described further <a href="http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html">here</a>. Good Lord, no, the US (and its allies, including Canada and the UK, let's make no mistake here) would never knowingly and directly target civilians. From a certain point of view, a nuclear bomb is a direct, relatively clean, quick, and painless death for a lot of people. Committing near-genocide through targeted disease and poverty is another thing altogether. X. PS: Tangential, but related to the 'targeting civilians' issue: Luckily the US would never knowingly use biochem weapons on its own people, <a href="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-171044620021009-071023.html">right</a>? <a href="http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html">Right</a>?