Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ethics

1991 Uprising In Iraq Against Saddam L.a [Doc]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Must Watch. Proceed with caution due to very explicit and mature content

 

 

Following the Saddam invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent gulf war which left the Iraqi army battered. The Iraqi people rose to free themselves from the shackles of Saddam. Large parts of Iraq fell to the people, the city of Karbala withstood the Saddam aggression for over two weeks. This film attempts to recollect the events that took place in that tragic period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

From the New York Times article you posted as proof,

 

"The Security Council responded to these concerns earlier this year when it offer Iraq the opportunity to sell $2 billion worth of oil to purchase food and medicines under United Nations supervision, the second such offer in four years. Iraq rejected both as infringements of its sovereignty and has continued to demand an unconditional end to sanctions.'

 

From you Wiki article you post as proof,

 

"As the sanctions faced mounting condemnation for its humanitarian impacts, several UN resolutions were introduced that allowed Iraq to trade its oil for goods such as food and medicines. The earliest of these, Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991, allowed the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food. Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to $1.6 billion USD in oil to fund an Oil For Food program.

In 1996, Iraq was allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (under Security Council Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion USD of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for implementation of that resolution. The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Twenty-five percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Persian Gulf War reparations account, and three percent into United Nations programs related to Iraq.

While the programme is credited with somehow improving the conditions of the population, it was not free from controversy itself. Denis Halliday, who oversaw the Programme, believed it was inadequate to compensate for the adverse humanitarian impacts of the sanctions. The U.S. State Department criticized the Iraqi government for inadequately spending the money, exporting food, and refusing to accept the program for several years after it was offered in 1991.[56] In 2004/5 the Programme became the subject of major media attention over corruption, as allegations surfaced such as that Iraq had systematically sold allocations of oil at below-market prices in return for some of the proceeds from the resale outside the scope of the Programme; investigations implicated individuals and companies from dozens of countries. See Oil For Food Programme - Investigations."

 

As you see, as early as 1991 Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food and medicine.  But, refused to do so.

 

And, why were the sanctions imposed?  Again from Wiki,

 

"The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction."

 

Remember Saddam's invasion of Kuwait resulting in over 20,000 dead?

 

Sanctions didn't kill children in Iraq.  A brutal regime killed children in Iraq. 

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

From the New York Times article you posted as proof,

 

"The Security Council responded to these concerns earlier this year when it offer Iraq the opportunity to sell $2 billion worth of oil to purchase food and medicines under United Nations supervision, the second such offer in four years. Iraq rejected both as infringements of its sovereignty and has continued to demand an unconditional end to sanctions.'

 

From you Wiki article you post as proof,

 

"As the sanctions faced mounting condemnation for its humanitarian impacts, several UN resolutions were introduced that allowed Iraq to trade its oil for goods such as food and medicines. The earliest of these, Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991, allowed the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food. Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to $1.6 billion USD in oil to fund an Oil For Food program.

In 1996, Iraq was allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (under Security Council Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion USD of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for implementation of that resolution. The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Twenty-five percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Persian Gulf War reparations account, and three percent into United Nations programs related to Iraq.

While the programme is credited with somehow improving the conditions of the population, it was not free from controversy itself. Denis Halliday, who oversaw the Programme, believed it was inadequate to compensate for the adverse humanitarian impacts of the sanctions. The U.S. State Department criticized the Iraqi government for inadequately spending the money, exporting food, and refusing to accept the program for several years after it was offered in 1991.[56] In 2004/5 the Programme became the subject of major media attention over corruption, as allegations surfaced such as that Iraq had systematically sold allocations of oil at below-market prices in return for some of the proceeds from the resale outside the scope of the Programme; investigations implicated individuals and companies from dozens of countries. See Oil For Food Programme - Investigations."

 

As you see, as early as 1991 Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food and medicine.  But, refused to do so.

 

And, why were the sanctions imposed?  Again from Wiki,

 

"The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction."

 

Remember Saddam's invasion of Kuwait resulting in over 20,000 dead?

 

Sanctions didn't kill children in Iraq.  A brutal regime killed children in Iraq. 

 

All the Best,

David

 

Unfortunatley, the time clock doesn't start when people choose it too. The so called weapons of mass destruction and the piles of weapons and the green light Saddam had was handed to him by the Americans, Germans, UK to invade iran just a few years before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunatley, the time clock doesn't start when people choose it too. The so called weapons of mass destruction and the piles of weapons and the green light Saddam had was handed to him by the Americans, Germans, UK to invade iran just a few years before.

How many Iranian died in Iraqi Iranian war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Where do we start the clock?  With the Ottoman invasion?  With the Mongol invasion?  With the Arab Muslim invasion?  With the Sassanid invasion?

 

The piece of land known as Iraq has known many invaders.  The latest being daesh. 

 

I do think we are seeing an end game emerge.  What is now called Iraq will be divided into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states.  And, while Sunni and Shia power brokers will scream and claim it is an evil plot by the West, I do think it is in the best interest of all "Iraqis."

 

Just my two cents.

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

From the New York Times article you posted as proof,

 

"The Security Council responded to these concerns earlier this year when it offer Iraq the opportunity to sell $2 billion worth of oil to purchase food and medicines under United Nations supervision, the second such offer in four years. Iraq rejected both as infringements of its sovereignty and has continued to demand an unconditional end to sanctions.'

 

From you Wiki article you post as proof,

 

"As the sanctions faced mounting condemnation for its humanitarian impacts, several UN resolutions were introduced that allowed Iraq to trade its oil for goods such as food and medicines. The earliest of these, Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991, allowed the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food. Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to $1.6 billion USD in oil to fund an Oil For Food program.

In 1996, Iraq was allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (under Security Council Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion USD of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for implementation of that resolution. The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Twenty-five percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Persian Gulf War reparations account, and three percent into United Nations programs related to Iraq.

While the programme is credited with somehow improving the conditions of the population, it was not free from controversy itself. Denis Halliday, who oversaw the Programme, believed it was inadequate to compensate for the adverse humanitarian impacts of the sanctions. The U.S. State Department criticized the Iraqi government for inadequately spending the money, exporting food, and refusing to accept the program for several years after it was offered in 1991.[56] In 2004/5 the Programme became the subject of major media attention over corruption, as allegations surfaced such as that Iraq had systematically sold allocations of oil at below-market prices in return for some of the proceeds from the resale outside the scope of the Programme; investigations implicated individuals and companies from dozens of countries. See Oil For Food Programme - Investigations."

 

As you see, as early as 1991 Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food and medicine.  But, refused to do so.

 

And, why were the sanctions imposed?  Again from Wiki,

 

"The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction."

 

Remember Saddam's invasion of Kuwait resulting in over 20,000 dead?

 

Sanctions didn't kill children in Iraq.  A brutal regime killed children in Iraq. 

 

All the Best,

David

 

It is really disgusting to see you defend such a horrendous sanctions regime, I didn't think you would stoop this low, you shouldn't blame others of blindly beating the drums of their favorite regime in the face of mounting evidence against them while you do the same.  Every single human rights body and your own compatriots have harshly condemned and spoken out against it, please check your conscience and give all this a rest, if you have an ounce of empathy for the innocent children of Iraq.

 

Look at the top of this thread, it mentions that there was a very courageous uprising against Saddam post the war while he was relatively weak, the Iraqi people bravely could have overthrown their dictator.  Instead a brutal sanctions regime was imposed, which strengthened Saddam and weakened the resistance.  Of course Saddam rejected the aid, why wouldn't he?  Thanks to the US, he was having a field day.  The whole argument about the security counsel offering a little bit of aid is irrelevant because the sanctions themselves were highly immoral and unjustified in the first place, whether Saddam had weapons or not, they only helped him.  This is standard and known to all serious political historians/analysts, sanctions typically help the state while hurting the population by increasing their dependency on the state for help.

 

This isn't about what Saddam could have done, he was an enemy of the Iraqi people, this is about what the worlds most powerful nation could have done to prevent the death of countless Iraqi children which the US was complicit in killing.  There is no crime against the United States that even comes close to comparing to this, and yet you still deflect blame, pathetic.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

Your desire to demonize the United States blinds you.

 

And, not just on this thread but on countless others.  You have been taught since birth the United States is the center of all that is evil.

 

The world is not so black and white.  I do my best to point this out but hatred has caused the hearts of some to become like stone.

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

Your desire to demonize the United States blinds you.

 

And, not just on this thread but on countless others.  You have been taught since birth the United States is the center of all that is evil.

 

The world is not so black and white.  I do my best to point this out but hatred has caused the hearts of some to become like stone.

 

All the Best,

David

 

No you don't. you have demonstrated yourself to be a total hypocrite and a blind worshiper of the US state, rejecting a mountain of evidence from your own compatriots, all of your best wishes don't mask this reality.  You would make a good politician, in the mould of Madeline Albright above.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Where do we start the clock? With the Ottoman invasion? With the Mongol invasion? With the Arab Muslim invasion? With the Sassanid invasion?

The piece of land known as Iraq has known many invaders. The latest being daesh.

I do think we are seeing an end game emerge. What is now called Iraq will be divided into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states. And, while Sunni and Shia power brokers will scream and claim it is an evil plot by the West, I do think it is in the best interest of all "Iraqis."

Just my two cents.

All the Best,

David

We are talking about saddam, so in regards to him you cant start the clock willy nilly as it fits you. So spend your two cents wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have been taught since birth the United States is the center of all that is evil.

US have taught me (and not my parents) from my life experience how evil it can be. You see I was a kid at those times when we fled from Iraq because of the Gulf war, the sanctions effected us and our families had very hard times in Iraq because of it. So I'm very justified to hate such a country that have great power to effect people and what it did was very inhumanity and wrong.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

Sorry to hear that.  But, as I said, it is Saddams' Baathist regime that caused the the harm, not the sanctions.

 

And, they were not "United States sanction."  They were "United Nations sanctions" approved by China, France, the United Kindgom, the Soviet Union, Canada, Ivory Coast, Colombia, Ethiopia, Finland, Malaysia, Romania and Zaire.  

 

Yet another aspect "United States haters" fail to mention.

 

All the Best,

David 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

Sorry to hear that.  But, as I said, it is Saddams' Baathist regime that caused the the harm, not the sanctions.

 

And, they were not "United States sanction."  They were "United Nations sanctions" approved by China, France, the United Kindgom, the Soviet Union, Canada, Ivory Coast, Colombia, Ethiopia, Finland, Malaysia, Romania and Zaire.  

 

Yet another aspect "United States haters" fail to mention.

 

All the Best,

David

That's called influence. When you have a 90 billion dollar deal with the US and the deal you could have had with Iraq was maybe worth 4 billion and big brother tells you to pick one instead of having the liberty to pick both, this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting David aside , this book is good

Hawza under siege

http://www.bu.edu/iis/files/2013/04/Bath-Party-ArchiveFinal-1.pdf

Rednecks will say that native residents of the later called America died due to dusease not cutting heads .

And they will say that wars they been fighting ever since their state was founded were all defensive or helping ally and in either case it was done for the greater good of the humanity.

I'm not to demonize any nation but the state of denial that some American are living is morally disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

Sorry to hear that.  But, as I said, it is Saddams' Baathist regime that caused the the harm, not the sanctions.

 

Let's look at it this issue from a different angle, analogously using a fictional scenario to understand it in a simpler manner. Say a father of a family(let's assume they are living in cold Alaska) decided not to pay his monthly taxes deliberately without any justifications and as a result - the IRS imposed their "sanctions" on him by cutting of his electricity and won't remove this sanction on him until he pays his taxes. At the same time, the father is an oppressive figure in the family in a sense that the other family members in the house have no say in his decisions and are obliged to follow his instructions or otherwise are killed if they oppose him or attempt to flee the house(the family does not want to live with the father). At the same time the IRS by imposing their sanctions on the man - cut of his electricty which resulted in the infants being killed of the cold(since there was no electricty to keep the house warm). Now who is to blame for the death of the infants; the father who refused to pay his taxes, or the IRS - who although had intended to only punish the father for not paying his taxes, they however implemented it in a senseless and careless manner where such punishment lead the death of the infants in the house? I hope we can agree that any sane person will not point the finger at the father and throw the full blame on him, while completely dismissing the senseless approach used by the IRS in implementing their form of punishment on the father which led to the death of the infants.

With that being said (and hoping the idea is clicked in by now), the U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. politicians and their supporters are in essence not any different and just as filthy as the IRS depicted in the above scenario. While Saddam was a neo-Hitler oppressive dictator that was despised by the majority of his people and where his people had no say in his decision making and wanted to get rid of him - Iraqis however still blame the U.S. foreign policy as the root cause in the death of these thousands of children. That is; blaming these U.S. politicians for their senseless and inhuman methodology they implemented to punish Saddam by imposing those sanctions in the first place but eventually led to the death of these children and while considering that other possible and more reasonable methods which may not necessarily risk the lives of civilians could have been taken into consideration by these U.S. politicians instead.

U.S. foreign policy is the root cause of this massacre in Iraq without a doubt. It's almost like a neo-Hiroshima being implemented this time in Iraq instead of Japan, with the only difference being - instead of an Atomic bomb being used in causing the death of thousands, you have the sanctions being used instead to roughly do the same job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't hate the country, I am quite certain that had I presented the evidence to most Americans, they would be furious and be angry at their government for killing half a million Iraqi children, but David isn't a misinformed indoctrinated typical American citizen, he is an informed American citizen much like most US politicians who know their governments transgressions but refuse to acknowledge them and instead lay the blame elsewhere. Such apologists exist in every nation, but the problem is compounded when they represent a super power.

Go and read a little history David, it was the US which pushed those sanctions primarily, and principally it was the US and the UK which refused to back down despite much pleading from worlds human rights organizations.

True, I should not say hating the country, but rather the actions they made.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of you outside the US have to understand that the views of this 'David' character are very rare, even within the US. Most Americans acknowledge that there are many aspects of US foreign policy that are evil and wrong. The problem is that they believe that there is a 'net' benefit to the world from the actions of the US in foreign countries. This is the bs they are being fed by the mainstream media, day in and day out. 

 

I don't think you will find too many people who would defend the Iraq War or the Iraq sanctions. They believe these were big mistakes as was the Vietnam War, etc. But they believe that other programs the US does such as giving humanitarian relief, disaster relief, building infrastructure in poor countries, etc, outweighs the mistakes. I am not one of those people, but this is the majority opinion because most of the people in the US have never traveled outside to other countries, except for maybe  a cruise or some other trip where everything is pre-planned and the trip only goes to certain 'tourist trap' areas. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most believe Bush et al is a big time idiot and a criminal, thus he has almost no credibility except among a few Texas cowboys. His brother Jeb is running for President, and has almost no chance due to the Bush name now being toxic. The problem is that they don't see the full effects of this act of lying about WMD such as destruction of Iraqi society

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Abu Hadi, I hate to disappoint you but my views would be described as right wing centrist.  And, based on recent elections, people with similar views to mine represent a majority of the US voting population.

 

And what do they think about their gouverment lying openly about the WMD's in Iraq?

 

You are about 9 years out of date.

 

"Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says"

 

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

 

Please let me apologize.  I tried to pull the wool over your eyes but you guys are just too smart.  The World was a magical place with peace, tranquility, prosperity and not a hungry child to be seen prior to the United States coming along 240 years ago.  And now, the United States is the source of all evil in the world and the very reason for whatever hardship you are experiencing.  As I said, I tried to fool you guys.  But, you all are just too smart

 

As Tony Montana said in the movie "Scarface."

 

"You need people like me!  You need people like me so you can point your fingers and say "Look!  There goes the bad guy!"

What that make you?  Good?"

 

All the Best,

David

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Abu Hadi, I hate to disappoint you but my views would be described as right wing centrist.  And, based on recent elections, people with similar views to mine represent a majority of the US voting population.

 

 

You are about 9 years out of date.

 

"Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says"

 

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

 

Please let me apologize.  I tried to pull the wool over your eyes but you guys are just too smart.  The World was a magical place with peace, tranquility, prosperity and not a hungry child to be seen prior to the United States coming along 240 years ago.  And now, the United States is the source of all evil in the world and the very reason for whatever hardship you are experiencing.  As I said, I tried to fool you guys.  But, you all are just too smart

 

As Tony Montana said in the movie "Scarface."

 

"You need people like me!  You need people like me so you can point your fingers and say "Look!  There goes the bad guy!"

What that make you?  Good?"

 

All the Best,

David

 

The Victory of the Republicans in 2010 and 2014 were driven by 

 

1) Dissatisfaction with the policies of the Obama Administrations

2) Fewer Democrats vote in Mid Term Elections

3) Economic Issues

 

Had nothing at all to do with foreign policy. 

Because most Americans don't know much about US Foreign Policy. 

I can't think of the last time it has been a major issue in elections. 

 

You are hilarious. Your still holding on to that line of WMD. 

Bush himself was laughing at people like you. Check out below

(Check out @ 5 min)

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...