[note, this pack of lies partially quoted here, has made the rounds for a while now]

RE: The Secret Behind the Sanctions How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply

by Thomas J. Nagy http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

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. (Rest snipped -- full post at

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006df5 )

The truth is another matter.

Yes, Gulf War documents from the time when Iraq occupied Kuwait which discuss the situation with respect to that limited period of time are there. They are not what Nagy, or the person who posted this tripe on this board, represents them to be.

The documents at

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/

all date from the period of conflict in 1991. They are Defense Intelligence Agency military assessments of the type commonly done during any military operation and its followup period.

Elsewhere, the site itself points out its general limitation of consideration to the war period.

The discussion of Iraqi water is of the dangers of the effects of degredation of the Iraqi water supply if there were a significant delay before reclaiming Kuwati territory. The discussion of disease effects of bombing is a preparatory warning from DIA of the possibility of disease spread, of the propaganda value to Hussein of disease spread {would have allowed him to claim that US was waging biological warfare}, and of the increasing need for medical relief in the form of medical supplies and trained personel with increasing length of the pre-ground assault phase.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html

To accuse anyone in the United States Government on the basis of these memos of any sort of post war violation of the Geneva Conventions is to misrepresent what these documents are and when they were produced. To make such an accusation is to fail to read them in terms of their date of origin {plainly given in the memo and different from the date of release or the date of filing on the computer site}, and their office of origin. To make such an accusation is to misrepresent their context.

IMPORTANT

In any case, the current UN sanctions are not the same as the UN sanctions in force for the limited period of Desert Shield/Storm.

Those sanctions ended, and later sanctions of a much looser form were imposed afterwards as a consequence of Iraqi intransigence after UN inspectors found documents on the development and fabrication of nuclear weapons in the 20 K ton range.

Those later sanctions do not impose the restrictions on materials related to public health, food, and water that the necessities of war required for the limited period from the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait through the end of Desert Storm.

In particular, the current sanctions do not include water treatment supplies and equipment, medical supplies, food, or water. The UN resolutions regarding the current sanctions are all available at the UN's web site.

-- Seth (mstrcrftr9@nospam.aol.com), October 10, 2001

Answers

www.prorev.com (archived) RECOVERED HISTORY May 1996

LESLEY STAHL, 60 MINUTES: We have heard that a half million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima and - and you know, is the price worth it?"

U.N. AMBASSADOR MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

This is on top of the 200,000 plus Iraqis killed during Desert Slaughter in 1991, most of whom were conscripts recruited at the barrel of a gun (Iraq's military is NOT volunteer). How many teenagers were buried alive in trenches? How many were killed while trying to retreat?

-- mark (mrobinowitz@nospam.igc.org), October 10, 2001.

ASK SADDAM. SEE IF HE GIVES A SHIT.

-- jimmie-the-weed (thinkasur@aol.com), October 10, 2001.

See also a September 2001 issue of "the Progressive Magazine", the author, Thomas J. Negy, exposes an eye-splitting account of a secret document," Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" prepared by the US Defence Intelligence Agency in January 1991. It stipulates how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

The document states," Failing to secure supplies (because of sanctions) will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences of disease….

Iraqi rivers contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, (the import of which is embargoed by sanctions) epidemics of such disease as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur." What a strategy to topple its former minion, Saddam Hussein, by killing innocent people with epidemics? Even Mongols in the 13th century would have shivered with a twinge of remorse if they had seen such a brutal strategy.

http://www.paknews.com/articles.php?id=1&date1=2001-10-06

-- robert waldrop (rmwj@soonernet.com), October 10, 2001.

It appeared to me that Seth was saying that Nagy was lying. And, from what he says of the actual documents, (I will check them out), he appears to be right. Let's not make our military out to be monsters like Saddam Hussein, please!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), October 10, 2001.

See also a September 2001 issue of "the Progressive Magazine", the author, Thomas J. Negy, exposes an eye-splitting account of a secret document," Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" prepared by the US Defence Intelligence Agency in January 1991. It stipulates how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. robert waldrop

If this reply is an indication of how well you read and understand, I'd suspect you don't have too firm a grip on what is at issue at any time.

You're referencing the exact author and "article" I am calling a LIE as proof that the author and article was not a lie.

I really get a kick out of the "closed loop" method of reason folks who attack the US use. Do you have any other sources of information other than "progressive" web sites. I doubt it, VERY much!!

The logic universally employed seems little more than the American government is wrong because the American government is wrong. Your standards for proof are pretty damn low, as well.

All anyone needs to be credible to the so called "progressives" (radical left wing and anarchists) is to attack the US. Never mind if the attack is based on foundations that are completly false. If they spent one-tenth of the effort to investigate these hysterical tomes by the critics of anything American, as they do to find them, they would be far better served and so would your cause.

IOW, they would have SOME credibility outside their own circle.

Of course, then, the facts would get in the way of "the agenda". This dilemma -- at the VERY heart of the "movement" -- may be the reason they have been such a small (if you can call noise a) part of the American political process.

I guess it is easier to stand "outside" and throw rocks and not be forced to be responsible or accountable "inside" where you'd have to deal with the survival of a nation.

Also, "they" would have to attempt to get closer to the "whole" truth instead of just the parts that make them seem so (self righteously) correct, to themselves.

Seth

-- Seth (mstrcrftr9@nospam.aol.com), October 10, 2001.

Seth,

Well put!!!!

JB

-- Jackson Brown (Jackson_Brown@deja.com), October 11, 2001.