Wird Dir das nicht langsam langweilig? Kaum jemand achtet hier noch
auf die Nebelkerzen, die Du hier anscheinend aus Langeweile wirfst:
Leo Plegger schrieb am 11. Dezember 2004 23:59
> Aber die Iraker haben Glück. Du wirst in Zukunft nicht müde werden,
> das auf den Angriff/die Sanktionen zu schieben. Dass der Saddam-Clan
> den Reichtum des Landes unter sich und den Getreuen aufteilte, das
> hast du vielleicht bereits jetzt schon vergessen.
In erster Linie dienten die Sanktionen dazu, das irakische Volk zu
schwächen. In zweiter Linie sollten sie die militärischen Kapazitäten
des Iraks beseitigen. In beiderlei Hinsicht waren die Sanktionen ein
voller Erfolg. Auch was die über 1,5 Millionen getötete Iraker
betrifft!
Die sogenannten "UN-Sanktionen" wurden vom (seinerzeit)
stellvertretenden UN-Generalsekretär und zwei UN-Beamten, die mit dem
sogenannten "Oil for Food"-Programm beauftragt waren,
unmißverständlich als Völkermord bezeichnet. Aus diesem Grund sind
besagte drei zurückgetreten. Sie wollten sich nicht des Genozids
schuldig machen!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
"Denis Halliday resigned as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to
Iraq in 1998, after 34 years with the UN; he was then Assistant
Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the elite of senior
officials. He had made his career in development, "attempting to help
people, not harm them". His was the first public expression of an
unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning,"
he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally
bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It
is as simple and terrifying as that . . . Five thousand children are
dying every month . . . I don't want to administer a programme that
results in figures like these."
When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he
chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to
implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a
deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million
individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam
Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the
contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people
who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated
water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of
control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the
Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will
slaughter those responsible."
Und hier ist die Erklärung der friedliebenden US-Demokraten für
diesen Genozid:
http://www.greenspun.com/com/zpub/un/wanted-ma.html
"US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has not only conceded that
sanctions are not affecting the Iraqi regime, she's also stated that
sanctions are amongst the most powerful weapon in the US arsenal. The
logic and cruelty defies belief. The US bends backwards to proclaim
their support for human rights world wide, yet applies sanctions to a
civilian population who have no control over their leaders, and whom
the sanctions do not, by the US' own admission, effect.
The practical result is that sanctions systematically kill Iraqi
children at a rate of up to 6000 a month and the US Secretary of
State says that this is a price worth paying for the punishment of
Saddam Hussein."
Zu den Taktiken der USA siehe auch:
"How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply"
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm
"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.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is
dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq
from supplying clean water to its citizens."
Und weiter zu diesem Thema (warum die USA gegen das irakische Volk
arbeite(te)n und dafür sorgten, daß Hussein zunächst an der Macht
blieb:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-07.html
"By refusing diplomacy, the US achieved its major goals in the Gulf.
We were concerned that the incomparable energy resources of the
Middle East remain under our control, and that the enormous profits
they produce help support the economies of the US and its British
client.
The US also reinforced its dominant position, and taught the lesson
that the world is to be ruled by force. Those goals having been
achieved, Washington proceeded to maintain "stability," barring any
threat of democratic change in the Gulf tyrannies and lending tacit
support to Saddam Hussein as he crushed the popular uprising of the
Shi'ites in the South, a few miles from US lines, and then the Kurds
in the North.
But the Bush administration has not yet succeeded in achieving what
its spokesman at the New York Times, chief diplomatic correspondent
Thomas Friedman, calls "the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi
junta without Saddam Hussein." This, Friedman writes, would be a
return to the happy days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq
together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and
Saudi Arabia," not to speak of the boss in Washington. The current
situation in the Gulf reflects the priorities of the superpower that
held all the cards, another truism that must remain invisible to the
guardians of the faith."
auf die Nebelkerzen, die Du hier anscheinend aus Langeweile wirfst:
Leo Plegger schrieb am 11. Dezember 2004 23:59
> Aber die Iraker haben Glück. Du wirst in Zukunft nicht müde werden,
> das auf den Angriff/die Sanktionen zu schieben. Dass der Saddam-Clan
> den Reichtum des Landes unter sich und den Getreuen aufteilte, das
> hast du vielleicht bereits jetzt schon vergessen.
In erster Linie dienten die Sanktionen dazu, das irakische Volk zu
schwächen. In zweiter Linie sollten sie die militärischen Kapazitäten
des Iraks beseitigen. In beiderlei Hinsicht waren die Sanktionen ein
voller Erfolg. Auch was die über 1,5 Millionen getötete Iraker
betrifft!
Die sogenannten "UN-Sanktionen" wurden vom (seinerzeit)
stellvertretenden UN-Generalsekretär und zwei UN-Beamten, die mit dem
sogenannten "Oil for Food"-Programm beauftragt waren,
unmißverständlich als Völkermord bezeichnet. Aus diesem Grund sind
besagte drei zurückgetreten. Sie wollten sich nicht des Genozids
schuldig machen!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
"Denis Halliday resigned as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to
Iraq in 1998, after 34 years with the UN; he was then Assistant
Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the elite of senior
officials. He had made his career in development, "attempting to help
people, not harm them". His was the first public expression of an
unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning,"
he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally
bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It
is as simple and terrifying as that . . . Five thousand children are
dying every month . . . I don't want to administer a programme that
results in figures like these."
When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he
chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to
implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a
deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million
individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam
Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the
contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people
who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated
water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of
control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the
Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will
slaughter those responsible."
Und hier ist die Erklärung der friedliebenden US-Demokraten für
diesen Genozid:
http://www.greenspun.com/com/zpub/un/wanted-ma.html
"US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has not only conceded that
sanctions are not affecting the Iraqi regime, she's also stated that
sanctions are amongst the most powerful weapon in the US arsenal. The
logic and cruelty defies belief. The US bends backwards to proclaim
their support for human rights world wide, yet applies sanctions to a
civilian population who have no control over their leaders, and whom
the sanctions do not, by the US' own admission, effect.
The practical result is that sanctions systematically kill Iraqi
children at a rate of up to 6000 a month and the US Secretary of
State says that this is a price worth paying for the punishment of
Saddam Hussein."
Zu den Taktiken der USA siehe auch:
"How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply"
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm
"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.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is
dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq
from supplying clean water to its citizens."
Und weiter zu diesem Thema (warum die USA gegen das irakische Volk
arbeite(te)n und dafür sorgten, daß Hussein zunächst an der Macht
blieb:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-07.html
"By refusing diplomacy, the US achieved its major goals in the Gulf.
We were concerned that the incomparable energy resources of the
Middle East remain under our control, and that the enormous profits
they produce help support the economies of the US and its British
client.
The US also reinforced its dominant position, and taught the lesson
that the world is to be ruled by force. Those goals having been
achieved, Washington proceeded to maintain "stability," barring any
threat of democratic change in the Gulf tyrannies and lending tacit
support to Saddam Hussein as he crushed the popular uprising of the
Shi'ites in the South, a few miles from US lines, and then the Kurds
in the North.
But the Bush administration has not yet succeeded in achieving what
its spokesman at the New York Times, chief diplomatic correspondent
Thomas Friedman, calls "the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi
junta without Saddam Hussein." This, Friedman writes, would be a
return to the happy days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq
together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and
Saudi Arabia," not to speak of the boss in Washington. The current
situation in the Gulf reflects the priorities of the superpower that
held all the cards, another truism that must remain invisible to the
guardians of the faith."