anti americanism fashionable

[Ramrod]

Are these the dams you are talking about Graham

Waters slowly return, but life may never be the same for Iraq's `Marsh Arabs'
By Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson
Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 3, 2003

"Saddam built dams to dry up the very existence of the Marsh Arabs, or Madan, who challenged his rule 12 years ago. U.S. troops recently released water from one of the dams, part of a plan by Iraqi and American wetlands experts to rehabilitate at least part of the marshes on what is now 7,000 square miles of cracked moonscape....Yet the marsh isn't the same. The water, once fresh, came back salty. The depth in May was about 5 feet, compared with 12 feet when the Americans first released the water weeks earlier. The fish that returned with the murky water were small and inedible. Former fisherman Nouri al Asadi said the fish were so bad that he was convinced the damage was permanent. "If the marshes return, so will the people, but I don't think the marshes will return," said Asadi....Today, there is no sign of marsh reeds or rivers teeming with life. What used to be marshland is made up of gray clumps of cracked earth with sparse desert vegetation broken up by dry riverbeds. The Madan say the blinding dust storms that blow across south-central Iraq are a result of this devastation. Even in Chebayish, where some green fields flourish now as a result of the recent return of water, a scramble up the banks of one of the canals the Iraqi leader built reveals a moonscape as far as the eye can see. Experts with an Iraqi expatriate organization called Eden Again are spearheading the restoration effort, funded in part by a $200,000 State Department grant. But getting enough water to restore even part of the marshes may take years, depending on the acquiescence of Iraqi farmers and oil executives, who benefited from the drainage program. Agreement also is needed from Syria and Turkey, whose dams curb the flow of water into southern Iraq

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Ho hum. More irrelevancies.

So any points I make are irrelivant but yours arn't? hmmmm.....

Did you actually bother to *read* those links I posted? Let me quote a couple of relevant sections...

"During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq."

"An estimated 90% of Iraq's national power grid was destroyed in the Gulf War."

Now *HOW* exactly, is that going to affect the Iraqi military *WITHOUT* also causing widespread suffering to civilians?

As I already said, the truth of these matters and the reason for them tends not to be apparent for decades. I am sure that there was a good tactical reason for bombing those dams.

And the US redefined "civilian" as "military" to justify their illegal actions.

While the Iraquis use ambulances to attack red cross buildings....

However we're not talking so much about "accident" as "carelessness"!

Now who's quibbling over words!

The US has this lovely phrase "collateral damage" to describe what happens when civilians are killed as a result of their military action. Those who are now suffering cancers or who have been maimed or killed by unexploded cluster weapons or who were made ill or died due to the lack of fresh water are just more "collateral damage".

I believe that you yourself have called that kind of rhetoric an appeal to emotion, or words to that effect. (and lambasted me for it in the past)

Now who is putting words into whose mouth?? There's a word for that...

What words exactly did I put into your mouth? All I said was:

Don't put words in my mouth. You have every right to condemn 'us' but when you don't utter a peep about 'them' it strikes me as odd and rather one-sided

.

'You just condemned the bombings in Turkey, yet you hadn't said anything about the abuses of Human rights in that same country and the persecution of Iraqi Kurds by Turkish forces! As someone said "but I don't see you condeming them for it"'

I don't see what Turkey has to do with this argument but if you want me to condemn Turkey for it's human rights abuses I will ....while we are at it, would you care to condemn Saddam for his and terrorists in general for theirs?

[basa]

On a slightly off topic note and hoping to lighten the tone...I thought Graham Nortons gag last night was hilarious:

The 41 gun salute was originally intended to be just one gun....but the CIA and FBI returned fire !!!!!!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by basa

On a slightly off topic note and hoping to lighten the tone...I thought Graham Nortons gag last night was hilarious:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thats all right, I didn't expect you to

Ah, we're back to the playground again.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Are these the dams you are talking about Graham

U.S. troops recently released water from one of the dams

No, because, once again, if you've clearly not *BOTHERED* to *READ* what I'd actually posted, instead of probably just taking a quick skim and then ignoring the facts.

Try reading:

http://www.nowarcollective.com/powellbio.htm

Note the section:

" In his memoirs, Gen. Powell recounts drafting a warning to Saddam one day before the beginning of the fighting, on Jan. 15, 1991.

" If driven to it, I wrote, we would destroy the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flood Baghdad, with horrendous consequences. (Powell, 1995; p.491)

"The city of Baghdad that Gen Powell threatened to flood is home to 4 million civilians who are also victims of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. During the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately targeted the water supply infrastructure †“ Professor Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University"

Or how about http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html

"During the Gulf War, coalition forces bombed Iraq's eight multi-purpose dams, destroying flood control systems, irrigation, municipal and industrial water storage, and hydroelectric power. Major pumping stations were targeted, and municipal water and sewage facilities were destroyed."

If you wish to make a fool of yourself, that's your business, but please don't try to do it by twisting *MY* words into something I never said.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So any points I make are irrelivant but yours arn't? hmmmm.....

If your point is irrelevant I'm going to bloody well *say* it's irrelevant. Just as your post above about the dams affecting the marsh arabs was irrelevant because those dams were *not* designed to provide fresh water, but only to drain the swamps the Arabs lived in!

If you think it is relevant: prove it.

As I already said, the truth of these matters and the reason for them tends not to be apparent for decades. I am sure that there was a good tactical reason for bombing those dams.

Ah, once again we mistake opinions for facts....

And the US redefined "civilian" as "military" to justify their illegal actions.

And yet again you reach for irrelevancies to try to cover up your losing arguments.

Those who are now suffering cancers or who have been maimed or killed by unexploded cluster weapons or who were made ill or died due to the lack of fresh water are just more "collateral damage".

That isn't quibbling. Those are *facts* Please try to tell the two apart.

What words exactly did I put into your mouth? All I said was: .

All you did was imply that I was *only* attacking "our side" and hinting that, thereby, I was somehow "supporting" the other side because I wasn't criticising them too. That is nonsense.

I don't see what Turkey has to do with this argument

Clearly!

but if you want me to condemn Turkey for it's human rights abuses I will ....while we are at it, would you care to condemn Saddam for his and terrorists in general for theirs?

Certainly, I have never said that I *wouldn't*.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, we're back to the playground again.

What?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, because, once again, if you've clearly not *BOTHERED* to *READ* what I'd actually posted, instead of probably just taking a quick skim and then ignoring the facts.

Try reading:

http://www.nowarcollective.com/powellbio.htm

Note the section:

" In his memoirs, Gen. Powell recounts drafting a warning to Saddam one day before the beginning of the fighting, on Jan. 15, 1991.

" If driven to it, I wrote, we would destroy the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flood Baghdad, with horrendous consequences. (Powell, 1995; p.491)

"The city of Baghdad that Gen Powell threatened to flood is home to 4 million civilians who are also victims of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. During the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately targeted the water supply infrastructure †“ Professor Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University"

Or how about http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html

"During the Gulf War, coalition forces bombed Iraq's eight multi-purpose dams, destroying flood control systems, irrigation, municipal and industrial water storage, and hydroelectric power. Major pumping stations were targeted, and municipal water and sewage facilities were destroyed."

I say again (and I said it before as well but you keep ignoring it):
'As I already said, the truth of these matters and the reason for them tends not to be apparent for decades. I am sure that there was a good tactical reason for bombing those dams.'

If you wish to make a fool of yourself, that's your business, but please don't try to do it by twisting *MY* words into something I never said.

Exactly what words am I 'twisting' and how????

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

#324<snip>*.

I give up, arguing with you is like banging my head against a wall.

[downquark1]

We've lost site of the topic, we were talking about why the USA was unpopular, I think this thread has proven the point, regardless of how valid the counter arguments are.

Originally Posted by downquark1

We've lost site of the topic, we were talking about why the USA was unpopular, I think this thread has proven the point, regardless of how valid the counter arguments are.

But saying this is just the same as carrying on the argument that's been going on for days ... except without backing it up with any facts!

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

But saying this is just the same as carrying on the argument that's been going on for days ... except without backing it up with any facts!

The red cross was concerned of quantomo bay. Leaving the geneava convention. War on iraq with no evidence of WMD.

This fact may have got lost in the media spin - but was there any connection between iraq, alqui eda or terriorists ?

[downquark1]

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...cle_1118.shtml

[Ramrod]

I find it strange that the red cross is concerned with guantanamo bay but I haven't seen much about it being concerned with the ambulance launched suicide attack on it's Baghdad offices. Is this just selective reporting