"The pipeline is under construction, buddy."
Wrong again.
There is no pipeline under construction. Infact there have been at least three attacks on pipelines in Pakistan, never mind Afghanistan.
There is a "deal", with no funding, between Turkmenistan and Pakistan, but there are no US companies involved. And until there is some security that pipeline will remain a pipedream.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
What the ummah gave or not gave is not the question here.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point! keep pushing your head deeper.
LOL!! The only point that youve made so far is that you completely misunderstand the Iraq issue.
ChannMahi, i must have missed your reply to my last post directed to yourself. Please let me know when you find an independent reference to corroborate that statement.
OG, Chomsky may have advocated sanctions back then - prior to 1.5 million dying over the next 12 years. As the US admin. became aware of the effects that sanctions were having upon the country, it became a responsiblity to lift them immediately. The moment you become aware that a particular action of yours is responsible for causing negative consequences, you have an obligation to cease that policy. That is why Chomsky altered his stance.
Nadia, I'm going to attempt to understand you better, if you would first answer the following questions so we can clear the air about any misconception you or myself might have and then go from there.
1.By lifting the sanctions you provide the tools to Saddam to create WMD much faster than he is currently able to, do agree or disagree?
Nadia, dont know what reference are you talking about? But let me say it for the last time...Sanctions are not unilateral..it is if you do this we will not let you sell more oil than necessary for food and survival. Now if you think sanctions are forcing hunger and disease on Iraqis, ask Saddam. He can stop doing acts that force sanctions or use the limited oil money to feed Iraqis rather than subjugating SHiites and Kurds to strenghten his empire. He have continuously chosen in the last 12 years to do what he was doing and not pay attention to save Iraqis. Is it not his first responsibility as a ruler of Iraqi people? You don't blame Saddam for a minute for this but put the whole blame on US. It is very typical of you. No blame on Taliban for killing thousands of Afghans in battles, due to hunger, lack of medical care, mass killings of non-Pakhtuns, millions languishing in homeless camps but as soon as America kills about 2000 afghan civilians in collatoral damage, lo and behold America wants muslim genocide.
As a rule of thumb one can say that you have no objection of muslims dying in hundreds, thousands or millions as long as the killer is a muslim. How hypocritical!
Nadia,
It is not too hard for Chomsky to alter his stance. For a government to do so would send an entirely wrong message. The next idiot who has sanctions imposed by the world community will simply follow Saddam's lead, create needless suffering, and let the other guy care more about his people more than he does. Chomsky can throw around ideas willy nilly, but he has no accountability.
I was in a discussion with a doctor the other day. He equated Iraq to a cancer patient. If you do nothing the odds are the cancer will kill you. The sanctions are the equivalent of Chemotherapy, it kills the cancer cells, but you feel like hell in the meantime. Ultimately if the cancer persists, you may run out of options and have to call the surgeon to have the cancer cut out. No doubt about it with surgery there is blood. So you hire the best surgeon you can find, but once you start surgery you never completely know what will happen.
Saddam is the cancer. We are praying for the patient.
OG, Its the Administrations foreign policies which are killing the patients!
OG, comparing sanctions to Chemotherapy is sad… and talking about cancer is not a joke. Iraq has thousands of cancer patients, one should never forget to mention the use of DU weapons by the US in Southern Iraq… hundreds of children have died from illnesses caused by the effects of radiation emmited by the DU shells, many babies are born with horrific deformities and child mortality rates are some of the highest in the world. 
Dil,
You and I have had this conversation before. There is a huge world of research needed to show cause and effect in cancer cases. Petrochemical pollution, heavy industry pollution, airborne nerve agents, any number of things could cause that is allegedly observed. Your politics is leading you to the conclusion that it is the DU. I hope they do find out what is going on, and work to cure people and solve the problems. No one wants children to die.
In the mean drop the patronizing lectures.
UTD, i sense that behind your questions there is a willingness to engage in a rational discussion. i thank you for this. i'll answer in brief comments so as not to waste your time any further.
>>1.By lifting the sanctions you provide the tools to Saddam to create WMD much faster than he is currently able to, do agree or disagree?>>
Disagree. By lifting non-military sanctions, Saddam Hussein does not obtain any tools to create WMD.
>>2. Food and medicine is available to Iraq, the government may purchase it and they have the money to do so. Do you agree or disagree?<<
i disagree with the part of your statement that "food and medicine is available to Iraq". This implies that all the necessary humanitarian supplies are lying within Iraq's grasp, if the govt. would just cooperate. i do not agree with this picture, as i believe it goes against the conclusions of most reports published by the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, Unicef, and indeed even by the Security Council itself.
Nadia,perhaps you could answer a question for me,is the Iraqi govt.allowed to buy food and medicine?thats it,i would seriously like to know the true answer to that one question.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"The pipeline is under construction, buddy."
Wrong again.
There is no pipeline under construction. Infact there have been at least three attacks on pipelines in Pakistan, never mind Afghanistan.
There is a "deal", with no funding, between Turkmenistan and Pakistan, but there are no US companies involved. And until there is some security that pipeline will remain a pipedream.
[/QUOTE]
Don't display me wrong if you don't have a single proof for it.
Even your CNN showed the news about it. So don't try to act like an smart a$$ if you aint one.
And for your kind information the opposition in IRAQ already is dealing with different US companies about the Iraqi Oil problem.
Go figure!
This is not a debate on oil, but it was one of Mandelas allegations. The same allegations existed and still exist today regarding “the war in Afghanistan is over oil”. If you had been following the discussions in the Pak forum you would have found the following articles:
An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
The project has been around for some years
The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan’s unstable political situation.
This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead.
The pipeline would represent the first major foreign investment in Afghanistan in many years.
Alternate route
With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline.
Pakistan will be the terminus for the pipeline
The leaders of the three countries have now signed a framework agreement defining the legal aspects of setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.
The trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas via Afghanistan to Pakistani ports, from where it could reach world markets.
India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, said Delhi was welcome to join the project.
Turkmenistan has some of the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas, but still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it.
Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route.
Wary investors
Afghanistan would profit by receiving millions of dollars in transit fees and construction of the pipeline would provide thousands of desperately needed jobs.
It is also hoped such a project would boost regional economic ties and pave the way for further foreign investment.
The chief difficulty will be actually finding the money to build the pipeline.
The Asian Development Bank is carrying out a study for the project.
But investors will be very cautious about putting serious money into Afghanistan when the central government in Kabul still has only limited influence in the regions the pipeline would cross.
Notice any involvement at all from US oil companies?
Even in the US, one high powered rifle bullet shut down the Alaskan pipeline for days:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm
And, there have been at least three disruptions to Pakistan’s existing piplelines due to tribal disputes:
Rockets hit gas pipeline
January 22, 2003
ROCKETS fired by unknown assailants have ruptured a gas pipeline in Pakistan, threatening supplies to the capital Islamabad, officials said.
One official said at least three rockets were fired, hitting the main pipeline near Dera Bugti, in Baluchistan province.
“Paramilitary officials and engineers from Sui Northern Gas Pipeline (SNGPL) are trying to repair the damage,” a security official said.
An engineer from SNGPL said the damage could disrupt gas supplies to Islamabad, the nearby city of Rawalpindi and Peshawar.
“We are trying to control the damage,” Saifuddin Bugti added.
The 5215km Sui pipeline network is a major supplier of domestic gas.
One official linked the attack to problems with local tribal people over electricity supplies, which were stopped a few days ago due to non-payment of bills.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5874338%255E401,00.html
Until peace fully returns to Afghanistan, there can be no pipeline. All of the deals contemplated so far involve no Western companies.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Nadia, ...] I was in a discussion with a doctor the other day. He equated Iraq to a cancer patient. If you do nothing the odds are the cancer will kill you. The sanctions are the equivalent of Chemotherapy, it kills the cancer cells, but you feel like hell in the meantime. Ultimately if the cancer persists, you may run out of options and have to call the surgeon to have the cancer cut out. No doubt about it with surgery there is blood. So you hire the best surgeon you can find, but once you start surgery you never completely know what will happen. Saddam is the cancer. We are praying for the patient.
[/QUOTE]
*
OhioGuy, Sorry but on what basis do you state that Chomsky "has no accountability"? Maybe my mentality is warped because i am beginning to realize how deeply ido not see eye-to-eye with the majority of posters here on this board.
Regarding your above analogy regarding Iraq being a "cancer patient" - there are critical characteristics, my friend, that you perhaps forgot to mention. The cancer did not appear out of the blue one day, but was - to extend your medical analogy - injected into a particular patient for very particular political reasons which were perceived to be justified at the time. Whatever those perceived justifications, the "patient" did not develop cancer all in one moment and nor accidentally. Regarding the "chemotherapy" feeling "like hell" - please save your explanations for individuals more worthy of hearing it than myself. i have friends in Iraq, including some who are my age, 22, whom you should explain this to in order for them to comprehend why it is a necessity that we starve and kill their fellow countrymen and countrywomen.
Regarding Saddam Hussein being the "cancer" - he was a much more malignant cancer twenty years ago, but we chose not to go into surgery at that time. Now, for better or for worse, there are millions like me who doubt the genuine motivations of removng the "cancer" this time.
Not just you but i think we should all remember that each of us - you and i, as well as our respective families, will never have to witness the surgery so we cannot speak of how much blood will be shed. Our geographical distance from Baghdad, Mosul, etc., affords us this luxury. Distance, however, will never minimize complicity.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Braveheart: * Nadia,perhaps you could answer a question for me,'is the Iraqi govt.allowed to buy food and medicine*' thats it,i would seriously like to know the true answer to that one question.
[/QUOTE]
BraveHeart, my answer to your particular question above, in the manner that you have framed it with its implications (the most important of one being that food and medicines are lying just there within Iraq's reach if the govt. would just cooperate), is no.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
BraveHeart, my answer to your particular question above, in the manner that you have framed it with its implications (the most important of one being that food and medicines are lying just there within Iraq's reach if the govt. would just cooperate), is no.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia,i am being quite serious here,no implications intended,just a straight forward question,can they buy food and medicine?
You see as far as i know they are,that is why i blame Saddam for their suffering,now is that a fact or not,thats all im asking,honest.
Could you also explain what you mean by lying within Iraqs reach,you have really confused me.
BraveHeart, please don’t misunderstand me - my last answer to yourself was written in all seriousness. Unless i usually detect sarcasm in someone else’s reply, i try to avoid being sarcastic (or rude) in my replies. (OK, so i don’t always succeed, but i try).
Bear with me: say that, you go out somewhere this afternoon, maybe to hang out with a bunch of friends and this whole Iraq issue pops up during the conversation. Someone asks you the following question: whether you believe all Muslims hate the US, and s/he asks you to reply with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Wouldn’t you find it difficult to answer that query in one syllable? You would ask for a few sentences to express and expand upon whatever your response to the question is. Am i right? Please let me use your generosity to answer your Iraq-food-and-medicine question in a few sentences, not with a simple yes or no. The reason is that i believe it leads to the following suggestion/implication - that ALL that the Iraqi govt. has to do is, quite simply, purchase food and medical supplies. They wilfully choose not to, hence we have so much suffering. All inaccurate, as i will explain in the following sentences.
Under the “oil-for-food” (OFF) programme, Iraq has been allowed to export oil and utilize some of the proceeding revenues, all of which are kept at a New York-based UN escrow account, towards purchasing humanitarian supplies. Note this is NOT humanitarian aid - Iraq is utilizing its own money towards supplies for its citizens. Oil is the one and only export, since 1991, that they have been legally permitted to export. None other.
In March 1999, the UN Security Council Human. Report stated the following - please read it: …even if all humanitarian supplies were provided in a timely manner, the humanitarian programme implemented…can admittedly only meet but a small fraction of the priority needs of the Iraqi people. Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about in the implementation of the current humanitarian programme - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of the parameters set forth…Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people." (§46)
So you see - the ‘OFF’ programme was set up with the intention that it would not be capable of meeting the needs of the civilian society. Regardless of how much/little Saddam chose to cooperate.
EVERY time that Iraq wants to purchase - for example - ten dialysis machines for their main hospital in Baghdad, Iraq has to send a request of this to the UN Security Council. The five perm. members have the right to veto their requests (this is a whole other topic which i could go into but i won’t). It frequently happens that, components for one piece of equpiment are ordered (and permitted) but the corresponding components are not - thus rendering the entire equpiment worthless. Let me give you an example - they will order a particular amount of insulin and the request will be granted by the Council. They will require corresponding IV machines and request this of the Council. It will be rejected, thus rendering the insulin ineffective.
i could go on and on, but i’ll stop now.
Thanks for you reply N, i was not pushing you for a yes no answer,merely an answer to the question.
However i am still confused,why would they have a humanitarian programme that doesn`t do the job,or only does half the job and who is responsible for the implementation of the effort?
You see as far as i knew the Iraqis could sell their oil in relation to their humanitarian needs,i did not think there where limits on food and medicine,they could buy.Is it that they cant afford it or what,their not short of oil.BTW your link did not work.
>>why would they have a humanitarian programme that doesn`t do the job,or only does half the job<<
You have hit the nail on the head. That’s why i am ranting on this board like a loony, day in and day out, regarding the ineffectiveness of the entire sanctions system. The S. Council is aware that the programme does not do the job, the ‘OFF’ programme was set up with the knowledge that it would never intend to satisfy the needs - irrespective of whether or not Saddam cooperates. Do you sense some of my frustration now - when people blame Saddam, Saddam, Saddam for an issue that is vastly more complex than they give it credit for?
>>and who is responsible for the implementation of the effort<<
Security Council has set up a UN team, based in Baghdad; the 5 perm. members of the Council elect an individual to supervise the ‘OFF’ programme, who is also based in Baghdad. From 1997 to 1998, this position was held by Denis Halliday; Hans von Sponeck held it subsequent to Halliday’s resignation. You might recall the names of both individuals - they both resigned in protest, not at Saddam’s noncompliance under the sanctions, but at the ineffectiveness of the entire programme (which you just articulated above).
>>i did not think there where limits on food and medicine,they could buy.Is it that they cant afford it or what,their not short of oil.<<
i am begging you here BraveHeart - please, please, please read this. They have the answers to 11 questions presented, with the aim of answering questions like yours. As you know my biases (and as i tend to rant) i don’t trust myself to give you objective answers; please please please read the above-mentioned source. :flower1: Would really appreciate it.
Link should work, not certain why it was not - try this and let me know http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/090/71/IMG/N9909071.pdf?OpenElement If not, then click here and choose the report published on 8 April 1999.
OK Nadia calm down i have read it and to cut a long story short,i have to agree with you,it looks like it is really screwed up and should have been sorted out long ago.
I believe i remember Bush stating that on Sep 11th he was actualy trying to work out a better way of operating the whole system,as i said though,it should have been done before that.
However this is where we part ways N,i place the ultimate blame for his peoples and his neighbors suffering squarlely on Saddam Hussein and his cronies.The blame for the screw ups with the OFF programme i place with the bad managment that is within the UN and the polititians that did not sort it out,not on some twisted scheme by Bush and Blair etc.
I wish i knew where you were from N,you said that you were in the UAE,i believe,when the oilfields were torched,is that where you are from or were you just staying there at that time?just interested.