In many places women and girls can now get an education. Democracy is in place and expanding.
:sl: Brother,
I would greatly appreciate it if you also salute me back. Allah (Exalted is He) said in Surah Al-Anaam:
When those who believe in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) come to you, say: "Salamun Alaikum" (peace be on you); your Lord has written Mercy for Himself, so that, if any of you does evil in ignorance, and thereafter repents and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then surely, He is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.
And in An-Nisa:
When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally. Certainly, Allah is Ever a Careful Account Taker of all things.
Abu Dawud recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Prophet of Allah (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "By He in Whose Hand is my soul! You will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love each other. Should I direct you to an action that would direct you to love each other? Spread the Salam among yourselves". (Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, Number 4).
Now as for your statement, despite that you have ignored my parenthesis on the term [liberation], I will still continue to address your statement. Let's analyze it and see whether your statement holds weight. It is strue that school enrollment has increased, particulary among girls, which is stated in the recent UN report. However, 62% of the children are not going to school (nine provinces only), and in ten provinces, atleast 80% of the girls are not enrolled in school. So thus, your statement that in "many places, women and girls can get an education, falls flat on the ground". Not only are the majority getting no education but the lack of economic progress is worse.
The majority of the Afghan women still do not have access to healthcare or clear drinking water and atleast 700 children die every day accordin' to the report.
Accordin' to the NY Times article which was a review of the report states that the country has a long way to go just to get back to where it was 20 years ago.
The report also states that
"mental disorders are another of Afghanistan’s war wounds, yet they have been largely ignored. WHO estimates indicate that 95 percent of the population in Afghanistan has been affected psychologically, and one in five suffers from mental health problems.”
A citizen from Jalalabad was quoted in the UN report who provided a description of the US-supported goverment of Karzai:
"It has no education policy, it has no health policy, it has no economic policy, it has no environmental policy, it has no security policy. It just takes everything by the day and many of the days are bad."
There is no "democracy" in Afghanistan, only the imperial footprint of the US. And moreover, the Afghan Muslims do not demand a tweaked democracy nor do they favour it but they demand an Islamic state with the correct Shariah Law implemented.
Because it is Afghanistan and it has not even been 4 years since the Taliban were crushed.
There has been turmoil in Afghanistan for centuries, I dont think anyone can expect the ethnic and tribal problems to just go away overnight. There is also the Taliban loyalists and Al Qaida types still doing their upmost to cause trouble.
No, the turmoil is partly caused by the US backed-warlords who are also known as the Northern Alliance. The ones that aided the US in overthrowing the Taliban. These perpetrators who are nothing but US-backed warlords levy taxes on goods passing through their territory, take bribes from the Americans for their loyalty and make millions through the poppy cultivation. There there is the gross abuses commited by them. the HRW has disccused this in depth and has atleast recorded more than 1000 violations in just a few months time.
I have not heard of that one, please enlighten me.
So, until I know more, I cannot comment.
The Austrialian SAS blundered in to a tribal dispute and provoked a confrontation which resulted in the deaths of atleast 12 Afghan villagers. The Time magazine did a coverage on this and I will provide it if I can find it.
Hmm, not sure what "Abu Ghraib" tactics are, but the actions of a few American soldiers can not be blamed on the entire US military.
It is not US policy to torture.
Nor did I brush the US military for the actions of a few. Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch, said:
“Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the iceberg, It’s now clear that abuse of detainees has happened all over—from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay to a lot of third-country dungeons where the United States has sent prisoners. And probably quite a few other places we don’t even know about.
According to the hrw:
Nine detainees are now known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan—including four cases already determined by Army investigators to be murder or manslaughter. Former detainees have made scores of other claims of torture and other mistreatment. In a March 2004 report, Human Rights Watch documented cases of U.S. personnel arbitrarily detaining Afghan civilians, using excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreating detainees. Detainees held at military bases in 2002 and 2003 described to Human Rights Watch being beaten severely by both guards and interrogators, deprived of sleep for extended periods, and intentionally exposed to extreme cold, as well as other inhumane and degrading treatment. In December 2004, Human Rights Watch raised additional concerns about detainee deaths, including one alleged to have occurred as late as September 2004. In March 2005, The Washington Post uncovered another death in CIA custody, noting that the case was under investigation but that the CIA officer implicated had been promoted.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005...usint10545.htm
Everyone in the western world and everyone in the Middle East assumed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Everyone. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them, as it kept his neighbors at bay at a time when Iraqs military was in shambles following the destruction suffered at the hands of the Coalition in the first Gulf War.
They were deluded since the Bush administration fabricated half-baked evidence that suggested that he had WMD. HIs deceptive rationale for goin' to war on that simple pretext is at its deceptive. What worried me is that 80% of the American population voted yes indicatin' that they believed that Saddam possed WMD based on the statement of Bush ------- ah the power of mass-media.
The only pretext the US needed was Saddams continued breaking of the Gulf War cease fire terms. Under the terms of that agreement which Saddam agreed to, Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wanted to investigate and he constantly got in the way.
What you seem to be forgettin' is that full inspections was still carried out by atleast 250 UN inspectors representin' 30 countries. The inspection fully ended when it was preempted by Bush's descision to go to war. If they had the given the needed time, they would have easily obtained the facts.
Saddam also agreed to allowing the UN to monitor "no fly zones" in Northern and Southern Iraq. Yet his armed forces would constantly fire on planes patrolling the no fly zones, again breaking the cease fire.
This is at its best laughable. Bush asserted that Saddam was breachin' the November 8 UN Security Council resolution by Iraq's firing on US aircraft. This was diplomately rebuffed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan and several foreign governments, including Security Council member China. There are no UN resolutions that prohibit Iraq from maintaining its military or taking action in defense of its territory. In order to breach that resolution, Iraq has to block access to sites, destroy or hide documents and be less than forthcoming in the declaration but they did not do that and thus, the assertion made by Bush is simply preposterous and yet he continues to deceive the public with his false claims.
The responsibility for those deaths lies on Saddam Hussein as I explained above.
Only a minor part of the responsibility lies on the part of Saddam.
When they imposed sactions, they were fully aware of the devastating effect of both the bombing campaign against the civilian infrastructure and the sanctions regume. A DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) released documents years after the sanctions were imposed revealin' that the US anticipated the dire civilian health consequences of destroyin' Iraq's drinkin' water and the sanitation systems in the Gulf War. It also documents the fact that the US was aware that the sanctions could/would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities which will lead to inevitable destruction of the water system and result in a devastating humanitarian crisis for the Iraqi people.
One of the primary document dated Jan. 1991 outlines and states the health consequences:
“Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.”
and:
“Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water… Iraq’s overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt. Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded.”
These doucments, in general, highlight the impacts of the sactions.
In other words, the US was clearly aware of the effects and impacts that the sanctions could bring to the Iraqi people (i.e. outbreaks of disease and high rates of child moraility).
Accordin' to the 979 protocol, Article 54 of the Geneva Convention:
“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”
And this is exactly what the UN has done under the command of the US by imposin' an illegal sanctions regime that deprives the Iraqi people of the basic nescessities for survival.
The members of the US congress even admitted that it was a violation of the Geneva convention.
U.S. Representative Cyntha McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, addressed a 7 June 2001 House hearing as follows:
“Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.”
Professor Thomas Nagy thus notes:
“
The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources… For more than ten years the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives.”
Atleast 1.7 million people had died (durin' the sanctions) and 250 people continue to die (after the sanctions) and yet here akhee, you're continuin' pointin' the finger at the Saddam regime whilst defendin' the US role in this genocide. I have never across a Muslim who persistently defends the genocide commited by these criminals who initialy suggested the sanctions. I'm aware that you're an American Muslim but nationalism is blindin' your judgement brother. And nationalism is forbidden in Islam.
Since the purpose of the Sanctions was to damage Saddam, it had in fact an entirely opposite effect which result in liftin' the sanctions.
According to a House Select Committee report on sanctions to the British Parliament in 2000:
“
Those who should be targeted, the political leaders and elites who have flouted international law, continue to enrich themselves. Much discussion has taken place of targeted sanctions, in particular financial sanctions, as a ‘smarter’ and more just approach. We conclude, however, that neither the United Kingdom nor the international community have made real efforts to introduce such sanctions. There has been much talk but little action. There is a clear consensus that the humanitarian and developmental situation in Iraq has deteriorated seriously since the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions whilst, at the same time, sanctions have clearly failed to hurt those responsible for past violations of international law as Saddam Hussein and his ruling elite continue to enjoy a privileged existence... However carefully exemptions are planned, the fact is that comprehensive economic sanctions only further concentrate power in the hands of the ruling elite. The UN will lose credibility if it advocates the rights of the poor whilst at the same time causing, if only indirectly, their further impoverishment.”
Former UN Assistant Secretary General and Chief UN Relief Coordinator for Iraq, Dennis Halliday, who resigned his post in protest against the sanctions regime, stated in November 1998 that:
“
Sanctions continue to kill children and sustain high levels of malnutrition. Sanctions are undermining cultural and educational recovery. Sanctions will not change governance to democracy. Sanctions encourage isolation, alienation, and possibly fanaticism. Sanctions may create a danger to peace in the region and in the world. Sanctions destroy Islamic and Iraqi family values. Sanctions have undermined the advancement of women and have encouraged a massive brain drain. Sanctions destroy the lives of children, their expectations and those of young adults. Sanctions breach the Charter of the United Nations, the Conventions of Human Rights, and the Rights of the Child. Sanctions are counterproductive, and have no positive impact on the leadership, and sanctions lead to unacceptable human suffering, often the young and the innocent.... I can find no legitimate justification for sustaining economic sanctions under these circumstances.”
Halliday asserted that he resigned his post “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... I had been instructed 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.”
Scott Ritter, an ex-U.S. Marine and former head of the United Nations Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq, certainly does not agree that the sanctions in their current form are justified: “
We’re killing 5,000 kids under the age of five every month. Now people say Saddam’s killing them, but ultimately, sanctions are killing them, and we shouldn’t be supportive of something that causes innocent people to suffer to such a degree.”
According to an authoritative report on Iraq prepared for the UN Secretary-General by Professor of International Law, Marc Bossuyt - a reknowned authority in his field - the “sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing human rights law” and “could raise questions under the Genocide Convention.”
Specialist in International Politics at the University of Bristol, Dr. Eric Herring - formerly Visiting Scholar at George Washington University (Washington DC) and Social Science Research Council MacArthur Fellow in International Peace and Security at Columbia University (New York) – observes that an expanding body of authoritative legal opinion agrees that the proposed International Criminal Court has a responsibility to investigate “
the UN bombing and sanctions which have violated the human rights of Iraqi civilians on a vast scale by denying them many of the means necessary for survival. It should also investigate those who assisted Saddam Hussein’s programmes of now prohibited weapons, including western governments and companies.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stipulates that:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
According to the Geneval Conventions:
“1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
“2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indespensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
Abdullah Muttawi, head of the Middle East Programme at the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), thus points out:
“The sanctions policy against Iraq has proven to be the single largest violation of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, a violation committed by the Security Council itself… Collective punishment is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.”
IAC analyst Sara Flounders concludes:
“The sanctions are really part of an overall destabilization strategy. This same strategy has been used by the Pentagon and CIA many times in the past: from 1950 to 1953 against the elected government of Mossadegh in Iran, leading to its overthrow and the bloody reign of the Shah; in 1954 against the democratically elected government of Arbenz in Guatemala, leading to a U.S.-engineered military coup and the subsequent slaughter of over 100,000 Indian people; from 1970 to 1973 against a democratically elected government of Salvador; against Allende in Chile which ended in the coming to power of the dictatorship of General Pinochet and the murder of 30,000 Chileans. The US policy of economic destabilization and overthrow in Iraq will not lead to a democratic government, but rather to a dictatorship compliant to US bidding, as has been shown time and again.”
So in short, the American strategy is that "if we destroy life, perhaps they will blame Saddam and run him out of office".
You can persist on soley blamin' Saddam but Saddam would rather let his people suffer than to give in to outside pressure. And the US knew that and yet continued imposin' the sanctions and only stopped when they didn't see the result. Moreover, in answer to the sanctions imposed, Saddam maintained an complete food-rationing program for rich and poor.
The statement of Albright aroused an indignation to millions of people. How can one make such cold-hearted statement about 500k children. It's a world crisis when 3k innocent people die (9/11 incident) but when 500k children die and continue to die, it's regarded as somethin' that is justifiable.
Peacefully surrendered? They did not surrender, they retreated.
What happened was the invading Iraqi army was defeated on the battle field and went into full retreat. The Iraqi army had yet to surrender. If you know anything about military thoery, you would know that you do not allow the enemy force to escape unharmed.
They were running away, not surrendering, there is a big difference. They were attempting to escape from the evelopement of the coalition forces and they were picked apart in the process.
The idea is, if you allow the enemy to escape intact with equipment, then you face the possibility of allowing them to redeploy and set up new defensive position which will be much harder to assault.
While retreating they are vulnerable and much easier to kill.
I suppose the Soviets should have allowed the Germans to just march out of Stalingrad after they had been defeated.
The Western Allies should have allowed the Germans to escape the Falaise Pocket. The Viet Mihn should have allowed the french to just walk away from Dien Bihn Phu just because they didnt want to fight anymore. That is not how it works in the real world.
Brother, I do not know how much you're acquainted with the highway of death incident but the claim that they were retreatin' is COMPLETELY groundless and I demand evidence for that.
They weren't retreatin' in order to regroup and fight again;
they were withdrawin' -- going home -- by respondin' to an order issued by Baghdad announcin' that it was complyin with Res 660 and leavin' Kuwait. The Iraq's foreign minister had accepted the cease fire proposed by the Soviets and issued an order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to positions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with the UN Res 660. Accordin' to many eyewitnesses in Kuwait, the withdrawal began the afternoon of Feb 26, 1991 and it was announced on the radio at 2 am.
Additionaly, this massacre also violated the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. To attack soliders returnin' home under these circumstances is a war crime, plain and simple and there is no justification for this massacre.
New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote,
"With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable."
In other words, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted.
A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A Soldier of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about
"How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, 'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job."
There are also evidences that durin' the withdrawl, the ones who were bombed included civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991,
not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions.
The Washington Post says
that senior officers with the U.S. Central Command in Riyad became worried that what they saw was a growing public perception that Iraqi forces were leaving Kuwait voluntarily, and that the U.S. pilots were bombing them mercilessly, which was the truth. So the U.S. government, says the Post, played down the evidence that Iraqi troops were actually leaving Kuwait.
:w: