Iraq: Professor Thomas J Nagy

[merphie]

"iThe Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the US Intentionally Destroyed Iraq’s Water Supply"

By Professor Thomas J Nagy

Full Article

Article Source of Information

Any Comments?

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think he took some "what-if" documents and tranlsated it into a plot by the US in his mind. It is the intelligence services job to "what-if" every possible scenario.

The site that Nagy cites as his resource also contains hundreds of documents like this one:

A. THE AMOUNT OF BOTULINUM TOXIN AND ANTHRAX DECLARED
[b.1. sec. 1.5.c.] WAS ONLY ONE-TENTH OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY
PREPARED.
B. IRAQ WEAPONIZED BOTH BOTULINUM TOXIN AND ANTHRAX.
WEAPON SYSTEMS INCLUDE MISSILES, BOMBS, AND ARTILLERY - NFI.
[b.1. sec 1.5.c.]



D. THE IRAQIS ORIGINALLY DECLARED THAT ALL BIOLOGICAL
WARFARE MATERIAL WAS DESTROYED IN SEPTEMBER 1990. THE NEW
STATEMENTS INDICATE THAT THIS MATERIAL WAS NOT DESTROYED UNTIL
SOMETIME IN 1991. THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE INDICATION IF THIS BW
MATERIAL INCLUDED BW AGENTS AS WELL AS THE ABOVE STATED WEAPONS
SYSTEMS. [b.1. sec 1.5.c.] THIS MEANS THAT THE BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
AGENTS WERE DESTROYED SOMETIME DURING OPERATION DESERT STORM).
2. [b.1. sec 1.5.c.]
INDICATE THAT THEY LYOPHILIZED ANTHRAX IN ORDER TO MAKE IT IN A DRY
FORM. THE IRAQIS RESEARCHED BOTH ANTHRAX SPORES AND THE ORGANISM,
BACILLUS ANTHRACIS, AS OFFENSIVE AGENTS. [b.1. sec 1.5.c.]

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19971030/971030_22011861_95d_001.html

For over a decade, Saddam and his thugs thumbed their noses at the world and lied about what they had, when they had it and what they did with it. Is it any wonder that our patience finally ran out?

 

[merphie]

I agree that the sanctions needed to be ended. Upon current ideas and thought I believe we were justified in the invasion of Iraq because of the violation of the UN resolutions. Powell's speech to the UN seemed to out line that as the reason to go to Iraq.

I think this deserves more research. If it is true, I have a real problem with the information.

I have no doubt it could just be an Anti-War spin on the subject.

So far I have only found confirmations about problems from the UN.

 

[Ion]

...
Upon current ideas and thought I believe we were justified in the invasion of Iraq because of the violation of the UN resolutions. Powell's speech to the UN seemed to out line that as the reason to go to Iraq.
...

I tell you for the third time:

.) Bush II went to war in Iraq because Iraq was trading its oil in Euros, not in U.S. dollars;

if the world starts trading in Euros, U.S. loses its financial domination because it has to work for goods in order to earn thru exports the Euros, as opposed to not work for exportable goods and just print paper called U.S. dollars;

.) Powell' speech in UN to justify Bush's will for the war against Iraq was Powell lying about Iraq's weapons;

it is documented that Powell and Bush II knew better than lying about Iraq's weapons;

.) Bush II broke U.N. Resolution 1441 to attack Iraq;

.) Bush I devised the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

 

[merphie]

Repost from another thread

This doesn't really apply to the US Military. The UN sanctions were imposed by the UN security council in response to the invasion of Kuwait. (Not the US exclusively) They were kept because of Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions.

The source for the document was more of a "What If" senario conducted by intelligence service as the site is full of similar documents.

The main subject of Chlorine was banned because of it's duel use. Iraq had been known to manufacturer Chlorine gas as a weapon.

The main point is the original article you posted was based on findings by Thomas J. Nagy which you can find here . His article was based almost solely on information from This document which has possible senarios that could be caused by sanctions.

The article by Thomas J. Nagy clearly blamed the problems in Iraq on the United States only because the USA released documents showing they did a study on the effects. The actions were performed by the UN.

You can also find where the UN had revised the sanctions and included some duel use items (Food for Oil Program) to relieve the suffering. However they also included strict controls and accountability so they could not use the items for military purpose.

The main problem and disease that occured after the war and during the sanctions was primarily caused by the actions of Saddam. Source It appears that he kept some of the problems going to fuel more Anti-Americanism.

Saddam made the problems even more difficult to assess because the regime restricted access to information. It was not possible to accurately describe the situation because of a lack of information pre and post war.

Saddam constantly lied about what he had, when he had it, how he got it, or what he did with it.

Once again, no one has researched the issue. They saw an article that supported their side and used it to confirm their beliefs. The article by Thomas J. Nagy is larglely an one-sided opinion. Apparently he didn't research it either.

 

[merphie]

For over a decade, Saddam and his thugs thumbed their noses at the world and lied about what they had, when they had it and what they did with it. Is it any wonder that our patience finally ran out?

It seems like you were 100% accurate.

 

[Ion]

It seems like you were 100% accurate.

100% minus this:

I tell you for the third time:

.) Bush II went to war in Iraq because Iraq was trading its oil in Euros, not in U.S. dollars;

if the world starts trading in Euros, U.S. loses its financial domination because it has to work for goods in order to earn thru exports the Euros, as opposed to not work for exportable goods and just print paper called U.S. dollars;

.) Powell' speech in UN to justify Bush's will for the war against Iraq was Powell lying about Iraq's weapons;

it is documented that Powell and Bush II knew better than lying about Iraq's weapons;

.) Bush II broke U.N. Resolution 1441 to attack Iraq;

.) Bush I devised the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

So, that's 100% minus 100%, which is 0% accurate.

 

[demon]

merphie:
"Once again, no one has researched the issue. They saw an article that supported their side and used it to confirm their beliefs."

Sounds like I`m in a dialogue with the deaf.
Pepto is wrong too when he asserts:-
"I think he took some "what-if" documents and tranlsated it into a plot by the US in his mind. It is the intelligence services job to "what-if" every possible scenario."

The best proof of this is the declassified Department of Defense report itself. It isn't a "what if? scenario"; it's simply a detailed, factual report of Iraq's water treatment capabilities. Interestingly, it remarks on the tremendous effort Saddam's government had made in trying to provide clean water to Iraq and how difficult a task it was because of the poor quality of the natural resource itself.

The report states very clearly that Iraq was dependent on imported materials such as filter membranes and chlorine to purify its water. Without these, it would be impossible to provide safe water to most of Iraq's population. At the time the report was written, January 1991, Iraq had endured a naval blockade for five months so the continued provision of safe water depended on how much of the vital chemicals and other materials the Iraqi government had stockpiled.

It's quite true that the report is not couched in the language of a 'plot'; it doesn't say 'let's prevent the supply of clean water so lots of Iraqis will die'. What it does do is set out the inevitable health consequences of unsafe water. There was no need for a plot - prevent the import of water purification materials and cholera, hepatitis, gastroenteritis and all the rest will follow as surely as the night follows the day.

People are responsible for the forseeable consequences of their actions. It's very clear that US officials knew the embargo against Iraq was preventing the import of essential water-purification materials and that without them, the government was helpless. The report spells out how there were no alternatives to treated water - not enough rainfall in most of Iraq for households to collect and use; bacteria and pollutants in rivers caused by untreated sewage (sanctions again) not killed or removed by boiling.

It's not only drinking water that's affected. Hospitals need large amounts of clean water to function as do many industrial processes.

It's a good game isn't it? People get sick because of unclean water at the same time as hospitals lose the ability to treat them because of unclean water. The US knew what it was doing and that's really the point.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[merphie]

Sounds like I`m in a dialogue with the deaf.
Pepto is wrong too when he asserts:-
"I think he took some "what-if" documents and tranlsated it into a plot by the US in his mind. It is the intelligence services job to "what-if" every possible scenario."

The best proof of this is the declassified Department of Defense report itself. It isn't a "what if? scenario"; it's simply a detailed, factual report of Iraq's water treatment capabilities. Interestingly, it remarks on the tremendous effort Saddam's government had made in trying to provide clean water to Iraq and how difficult a task it was because of the poor quality of the natural resource itself.

The report states very clearly that Iraq was dependent on imported materials such as filter membranes and chlorine to purify its water. Without these, it would be impossible to provide safe water to most of Iraq's population. At the time the report was written, January 1991, Iraq had endured a naval blockade for five months so the continued provision of safe water depended on how much of the vital chemicals and other materials the Iraqi government had stockpiled.

It's quite true that the report is not couched in the language of a 'plot'; it doesn't say 'let's prevent the supply of clean water so lots of Iraqis will die'. What it does do is set out the inevitable health consequences of unsafe water. There was no need for a plot - prevent the import of water purification materials and cholera, hepatitis, gastroenteritis and all the rest will follow as surely as the night follows the day.

People are responsible for the forseeable consequences of their actions. It's very clear that US officials knew the embargo against Iraq was preventing the import of essential water-purification materials and that without them, the government was helpless. The report spells out how there were no alternatives to treated water - not enough rainfall in most of Iraq for households to collect and use; bacteria and pollutants in rivers caused by untreated sewage (sanctions again) not killed or removed by boiling.

It's not only drinking water that's affected. Hospitals need large amounts of clean water to function as do many industrial processes.

It's a good game isn't it? People get sick because of unclean water at the same time as hospitals lose the ability to treat them because of unclean water. The US knew what it was doing and that's really the point.

The problem is your assertion that everything was caused by the evil United States.. The group responsible includes the member nations of the UN. To put all blame on the US is just anti-Americanism at it's best.

No one bothered to research past the initial article. I admit I was disgusted at the thought my government would be apart of something such as this. (I say government because any blame would not fall only on the president.)

The source also says that their water treatment plants were not reliable before sanctions. Their water is problematic even before treatment because it is all poor quality. It tells how they have other methods of producing water. The article is more of a status report.

The report also makes reconmendations for preventing the problem. The article cited ignores most of the report.

The second source I cited also mentions problems with the Saddam. A large amount of the blame could be placed on Saddam. The facts are that no one knows the exact conditions before or after the 1991 war because Saddam was so secretive.

The UN also realized the problems and tried to help. Their efforts were largely thwarted by Saddam's Regime.

It seems like some people want to show the USA being the demon causing suffering while Saddam was some poor, misunderstood man.

The US went in to help out Kuwait. The problems with the water was a result of that. Some of it was unavoidable. The blame still largely lays at the feet of Saddam.

Should it be argued that Kuwait should have been left to the mercy of Saddam?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
The report states very clearly that Iraq was dependent on imported materials such as filter membranes and chlorine to purify its water. Without these, it would be impossible to provide safe water to most of Iraq's population. At the time the report was written, January 1991, Iraq had endured a naval blockade for five months so the continued provision of safe water depended on how much of the vital chemicals and other materials the Iraqi government had stockpiled.

It should also be pointed out that there are technologies available for purifying water that don't depend on chlorine.

Originally posted by demon
People are responsible for the forseeable consequences of their actions.

"People" includes Saddam Hussein. Something you seem inclined to forget.

 

[merphie]

It should also be pointed out that there are technologies available for purifying water that don't depend on chlorine.

Which they point out in the document. The good professor seemed to pick and choose his information. He even has broken the sanctions for his idealism.

"People" includes Saddam Hussein. Something you seem inclined to forget.

That is included in the second document I referenced available from the same site.

 

[demon]

Merphie, try thinking about these points.

You say:
“The problem is your assertion that everything was caused by the evil United States.. The group responsible includes the member nations of the UN. To put all blame on the US is just anti-Americanism at its best.”

There are a couple of things here. The Security Council reflects the will of the United States as this exchange between Saddam Hussein and Perez de Cuellar, the UN Secretary General at the time of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, shows:

SH: “On 12 August we made an initiative. We did not expect it would be accepted in full. However, we never thought it would be turned down without looking into. The President of the US turned down the initiative while he was on the plane two hours after it was announced and without looking into it….

PdC: These were not my decisions, but the resolutions of the Security Council.

SH: These are American resolutions. This is an American age. What the US wants at present is the thing that is passed, and not what the Security Council wants.

PdC: I agree with you….”
(extract of the conversation between Saddam and Javier Perez de Cuellar comes from Geoff Simons' book "Iraq: from Sumer to Saddam". Simons' source was the the Independent for 12 December 1991.)

The other point is that the US assembled a coalition of the bullied and the bought at the UN – some of Egypt’s debts were forgiven, military equipment was given to Turkey, Syria received a supply of arms and aid and Iran came in from the cold and got its first loan from the World Bank since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The Soviet Union was busy collapsing and couldn’t afford to refuse the US; Perez de Cuellar expressed surprise at the “high degree of co-operation between the US and the Soviet Union”. Ah, the will of the international community is a beautiful thing.

You go on to say:

“The source also says that their water treatment plants were not reliable before sanctions. Their water is problematic even before treatment because it is all poor quality. It tells how they have other methods of producing water. The article is more of a status report.”

What the Department of Defense report says is:

“ALTHOUGH IRAQ HAS
MADE A CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TO SUPPLY PURE WATER TO ITS
POPULATION, THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WAS UNRELIABLE EVEN
BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS WERE IMPOSED. MOST IRAOIS
PREFER TO DRINK IMPORTED BOTTLED WATER.”

The report is in capitals, by the way – I’m not shouting. It doesn’t give any further details of what is meant by “unreliable”. From memory, the UN said that prior to the imposition of sanctions in August 1990, safe drinking water was available to 92% of Iraq’s population.

Your statement “It (i.e. the Department of Defense report) tells how they have other methods of producing water” is incorrect. The report very clearly explained that alternatives to the water purification chemicals and other materials banned under sanctions were inadequate for Iraq’s needs.

“IRAQI ALTERNATIVES. IRAQ COULD TRY CONVINCING THE
UNITED NATIONS OR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES TO EXEMPT WATER
TREATMENT SUPPLIES FROM SANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS. IT
PROBABLY ALSO IS ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE SUPPLIES BY USING SOME
SYMPATHETIC COUNTRIES AS FRONTS. IF SUCH ATTEMPTS FAIL, IRAQI
ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT ADEOUATE FOR THEIR NATIONAL REOUIREMENTS.”

You say:

“The report also makes recommendations for preventing the problem.”

Again, this is incorrect. The report looked at Iraq’s options if water-purification materials continued to be unavailable. These were mainly the cannibalisation of equipment, piping water from Kuwait for the production of chlorine, and trucking water from the northern mountains. The report concluded that none of these were adequate to meet Iraq’s needs. Cannibalised parts wear out and need replacing, the use of Kuwaiti water was short-lived because the desalination plant needed chemicals banned under sanctions and there were great difficulties in transporting enough water from northern Iraq. Even is these could be overcome, the water would need chlorine purification to kill biological pollutants. The report goes on to say that rainfall is too light throughout most of Iraq to provide a source of pure water and the high levels of salinity in ground water limited the drilling of wells. The conclusion of the report is inescapable:-

“IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES.”

I don’t think your statement that “The facts are that no one knows the exact conditions before or after the 1991 war because Saddam was so secretive” is correct. UN agencies were in and reported from Iraq both before and after the Gulf War. Before the war, many infrastructure projects were undertaken with British, American, European and Soviet companies.

Similarly, the statements that “The UN also realized the problems and tried to help. Their efforts were largely thwarted by Saddam's Regime.” are meaningless. A total naval blockade had been imposed on Iraq – it could import nothing. Iraq could only be helped if the blockade was lifted.

You finish with “The US went in to help out Kuwait….. Should it be argued that Kuwait should have been left to the mercy of Saddam?”

If you check the record you`ll find that Saddam made numerous attempts to negotiate an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait but all were spurned by the US who were determined on war.
You might want to look at the contribution of April Glaspie too in regards to Saddam and Kuwait.

 

[merphie]

There are a couple of things here. The Security Council reflects the will of the United States as this exchange between Saddam Hussein and Perez de Cuellar, the UN Secretary General at the time of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, shows:

So the other 4 permanent members of the secutiry council have no bearing in the choices? Then why do we have the UN? The USA should just withdraw from it and run things the way we want.

I mean surely they have a mind of their own. They disagreed on the second war in Iraq. Is France, China, Russia, and the UK spineless puppets of the USA?

So now Saddam is a more reliable source? Maybe we should follow his policies if he is such a good leader? He holds no credibility. Since you posted no source then I could assert you made up that conversation. I am required to provide proof.

Saddam offered to withdraw from Kuwait if Isreal withdrew from Palestine. He also condemmed the Arab neighbors and declared a holy war against them, including Egypt for offering to contribute troups. Bush (sr) had to make some concessions to other countries (Like China) to keep them from a veto. Several countries sided with Iraq in it's annexed Kuwait. Saddam then said (Through Russia) that he would withdraw if he was allowed to keep some of the conquered territory after Bush (SR) demanded Saddam leave Kuwait.

So you are in effect arguing that Kuwait should have been left to the mercy of Saddam's Iraq?

The report is in capitals, by the way – I’m not shouting. It doesn’t give any further details of what is meant by “unreliable”. From memory, the UN said that prior to the imposition of sanctions in August 1990, safe drinking water was available to 92% of Iraq’s population.

Your statement “It (i.e. the Department of Defense report) tells how they have other methods of producing water” is incorrect. The report very clearly explained that alternatives to the water purification chemicals and other materials banned under sanctions were inadequate for Iraq’s needs.

I have read the report. It also talks about the quality of their water from other sources. (IE Underground, sea water in the gulf.) I maybe making a stretch but there is plenty of options for the Iraqis to obtain water. They perfer bottled water anyway. I looked at several documents when you have focused on the one document like it was the holy grail.

Again, this is incorrect. The report looked at Iraq’s options if water-purification materials continued to be unavailable. These were mainly the cannibalisation of equipment, piping water from Kuwait for the production of chlorine, and trucking water from the northern mountains. The report concluded that none of these were adequate to meet Iraq’s needs. Cannibalised parts wear out and need replacing, the use of Kuwaiti water was short-lived because the desalination plant needed chemicals banned under sanctions and there were great difficulties in transporting enough water from northern Iraq. Even is these could be overcome, the water would need chlorine purification to kill biological pollutants. The report goes on to say that rainfall is too light throughout most of Iraq to provide a source of pure water and the high levels of salinity in ground water limited the drilling of wells. The conclusion of the report is inescapable

The biggest way for Iraq to avoid this disaster escapes you.

I don’t think your statement that “The facts are that no one knows the exact conditions before or after the 1991 war because Saddam was so secretive” is correct. UN agencies were in and reported from Iraq both before and after the Gulf War. Before the war, many infrastructure projects were undertaken with British, American, European and Soviet companies.

I am sure the government minders readily shared valuable information just as the Iraqi Information minister provided detail account of what was happening during the war.

I am sure the UN inspection teams never had any problem finding information.

You are completely ignoring other facts available from the same site as the report you are quoting.

If you check the record you`ll find that Saddam made numerous attempts to negotiate an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait but all were spurned by the US who were determined on war.
You might want to look at the contribution of April Glaspie too in regards to Saddam and Kuwait.

An what "attempts" were made? Saddam was so trust worthy. I am sure he was misunderstood and he was just vacationing in Kuwait.

You've only focused on the one document and ignored the rest. You are making Saddam the victim and the US the big bully.

 

[demon]

merphie:
"The biggest way for Iraq to avoid this disaster escapes you."

Do you mean that full co-operation with weapons inspectors would have relieved the sanctions?
I`m not sure if this is what you mean here but it was made clear by the US that sanctions would remain as long as Saddam did. One of the reasons why full co-operation wasn`t forthcoming, as far as Saddam was concerned, what was the point?

"You are making Saddam the victim and the US the big bully."

No, the Iraqis where the victim. The big bully remains as stated.

"I maybe making a stretch but there is plenty of options for the Iraqis to obtain water. They perfer bottled water anyway"

You seem to have a problem understanding what a full navel blockade is. It`s at the heart of the problem.

"So now Saddam is a more reliable source?"

Funny you should say that. I don`t remember Saddam saying he had any WMD do you? Do you remember who did though? According to Rumsfeld et al they even knew where they were. So Saddam is unreliable compared to who?

(Did you miss the source I gave for the Saddam exchange?)

 

[Ion]

merphie:
...
You seem to have a problem understanding what a full navel blockade is. It`s at the heart of the problem.

(Did you miss the source I gave for the Saddam exchange?)

Your next to last post was well researched and informative, demon.

 

[merphie]

Do you mean that full co-operation with weapons inspectors would have relieved the sanctions?
I`m not sure if this is what you mean here but it was made clear by the US that sanctions would remain as long as Saddam did. One of the reasons why full co-operation wasn`t forthcoming, as far as Saddam was concerned, what was the point?

Which resolution is that from? Got a source or is this more opinion?

No, the Iraqis where the victim. The big bully remains as stated.

So Saddam was an innocent bystander? Are you saying the UN should have left the gulf alone? That Bully you speak of includes the whole body of the UN.

Nevermind that Saddam invaded a neighbor. He killed thousands of civilians in Kuwait and the looting.

You seem to have a problem understanding what a full navel blockade is. It`s at the heart of the problem.

You seem to have problem understand what humanitarian aid is.
Sanctions were imposed and enforced by the UN because of what Saddam had done to Kuwait and refused to follow UN resolutions.

Funny you should say that. I don`t remember Saddam saying he had any WMD do you?

So? What difference would any word of his make?

Do you remember who did though? According to Rumsfeld et al they even knew where they were. So Saddam is unreliable compared to who?

No I don't. What source are you using?

(Did you miss the source I gave for the Saddam exchange?)

You said UN but that is hardly a source. Give me a link. Give me a resolution number. Got sources?

 

[Ion]

Which resolution is that from? Got a source or is this more opinion?
...
You said UN but that is hardly a source. Give me a link. Give me a resolution number. Got sources?

demon gave you the reference of a book detailing Saddam's and U.N. Secretary's conversation about U.S. running the U.N. Security Council.

What's your problem?

 

[epepke]

I tell you for the third time:

.) Bush II went to war in Iraq because Iraq was trading its oil in Euros, not in U.S. dollars;

if the world starts trading in Euros, U.S. loses its financial domination because it has to work for goods in order to earn thru exports the Euros, as opposed to not work for exportable goods and just print paper called U.S. dollars;

.) Powell' speech in UN to justify Bush's will for the war against Iraq was Powell lying about Iraq's weapons;

it is documented that Powell and Bush II knew better than lying about Iraq's weapons;

.) Bush II broke U.N. Resolution 1441 to attack Iraq;

.) Bush I devised the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

This thread is about 1991, not 2003. Only the last comment is remotely relevant.

 

[Ion]

In this thread, merphie mixes 2003 here:

...
Upon current ideas and thought I believe we were justified in the invasion of Iraq because of the violation of the UN resolutions. Powell's speech to the UN seemed to out line that as the reason to go to Iraq.
...

with 1991 here:

...
I think this deserves more research. If it is true, I have a real problem with the information.
...

My reply to merphie's post that you quote tells merphie about both, 2003 and 1991.

The 1991 part in my reply that you deem "...remotely relevant..." is in fact heavely relevant, is the crux of the problem with the sanctions against Iraq.

Pay attention.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think he took some "what-if" documents and tranlsated it into a plot by the US in his mind. It is the intelligence services job to "what-if" every possible scenario.

The site that Nagy cites as his resource also contains hundreds of documents like this one:


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19971030/971030_22011861_95d_001.html

For over a decade, Saddam and his thugs thumbed their noses at the world and lied about what they had, when they had it and what they did with it. Is it any wonder that our patience finally ran out?

Sounds like the classic "don't make me hit you" excuse.