Europe submits voluntarily

[Loren Pechtel]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

 

[untermensche]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

Saddam was playing games. And tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying.

So instead of either doing something about Saddam, or getting rid of the Sanctions so the economy could recover, the US just left the Sanctions in place. Fully knowing they were genocidal.

This is beyond any level of human cruelty that can be imagined by a normal person.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is happening in the towns and cities of Europe and it happens to muslim women.

...and Ethiopian women. They're not Muslim. But I think you're mixing apples with oranges. Female Genital Mutilation is a huge problem.. in Africa among poor rural farmers. When those move to Europe they take this tradition with them. But they're not meeting Westerners in Europe and doing it on them. The victims are still mainly immigrated Sudanese, Somalis and Ethiopians. If we stop letting them migrate to Europe we're not protecting these women. Migrants to Europe will within a couple of years change their minds about FGM and stop. It's unheard of that second generation immigrants to Europe do it. The outreach staff trying to battle this are all from that area in Africa. FGM has already stopped among the educated African urbanites.

I do suspect this will turn out to be another one of those practices that die out after a country has industrialised. But the jury is still out on that one.

On the other note. It will die out. FGM among immigrants only occur in first generation immigrants. Compared to other cultural habits it's one that dies out real quick. Why it keeps going on is because we keep getting immigrants from that region in Africa.

And for your information, it's also dying out in Africa. It'll be gone on 50 years.

It's not "dying out". It is being eradicated through hard work, much to the consternation of the faithful. It's a constant battle.

Any social change change happens through hard work by activists. What it means that a practice is dying out is that those who campaign against it more successful than those campaigning for it. So I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing for? Social change never comes easily. Also, the faithful won't be any less faithful because they stop with FGM. Speaking of which:

Here's a map of countries in Africa where FGM has been made illegal. The only one sticking out on that map is Egypt. Perhaps that has something to do with that they've had other things to worry about these last couple of years? As for the rest of them it is illegal. In Marocco and Tunisia they don't have a tradition of FGM, which might explain why they haven't bothered making special legalisation against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maputo_Protocol

Female genital mutilation is spreading among minority groups in Sudan despite widespread efforts to eradicate the practice, say campaigners. Women from communities which previously shunned FGM have told the Guardian they are being pressurised to undergo the procedure as adults to avoid being ostracised in a country with one of the highest FGM rates in the world. The latest Unicef report estimates that 87% of Sudanese women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have been cut.

Guardian

They're not saying that numbers are increasing. They're saying that it's spread to groups who didn't do it before. But overall the numbers have been steadily dropping for half a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Downward_trend

Women who respond to surveys on FGM are reporting events experienced years ago, so prevalence figures for the 15–49 age group do not reflect current trends.[n 12] Figures for the 15–19 age group show, for example, a reduction in Burkina Faso from 89 percent (1980) to 58 percent (2010); in Egypt from 97 percent (1985) to 70 percent (2015); and in Kenya from 41 percent (1984) to 11 percent (2014).[3]:1

From 2010, household surveys asked women about the FGM status of all their living daughters.[29]:194[2]:25 The highest concentrations among girls aged 0–14, as reported by UNICEF in 2016, were in Gambia (56 percent), Mauritania (54 percent), Indonesia (49 percent for 0–11) and Guinea (46 percent).[3]

The figures suggest that, overall, a girl was one third less likely in 2014 to undergo FGM than she was 30 years ago.[68]:2 If the rate of decline continues, the number of girls cut will nevertheless rise from 3.6 million a year in 2013 to 4.1 million in 2050 because of population growth.[n 13]

I don't think you've fully grasped how widespread this practice has been. Not that long ago used to be all women. The difference between 100% and 89% is huge. The leap to 58% is even more massive. This change has gone from being natural and normal to becoming something to have a discussion in the family about. Even in the worst effected areas we're on the cusp of the majority opting out. That's a massive shift in attitudes. The degree of how widespread this is explains why immigrants try to keep the tradition when moving to the West. But they also stop.

BTW, I forgot about Indonesia. There FGM is associated with Islam. But in a roundabout way. When Indonesia first Islamised, it was done by Ethiopian traders. Who also took this tradition with them. It was far from normal all the way until 1958, when it became heavily endorsed by Suhartos Islamofascist regime trying to take people's attention away from the real problems of the country. Like him taking away democracy from them. What happened in 1958 is that the government started to encourage FGM. They gave cash rewards to the parents for letting their daughters undergo the procedure. They spread lies about the health benefits, and even went so far as to bundle it with other stuff like dental care and vaccines. Now the practice is widespread. And the reason it still goes on isn't due to religious justifications. It's argued for on (false )health grounds. Today FGM it is illegal in Indonesia and they're doing their best to undo the harm that the Suharto regime did. The Indonesian Ulema are not being helpful in this matter. And are still encouraging it even now after it is banned. This shift in government policy (2006) hasn't had enough time to make much of an effect. But if we compare with Africa it probably will. My point is, if they can start with this suddenly, they can stop with it to. And they can stop with it without having to give up Islam. Which proves FGM is not an intrinsic part of Islam.

 

[TSwizzle]

...and Ethiopian women. They're not Muslim. But I think you're mixing apples with oranges. Female Genital Mutilation is a huge problem.. in Africa among poor rural farmers.{snip. This is as far as I got.}

Tediously predictable. You're like FedEx, you never fail to deliver.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...and Ethiopian women. They're not Muslim. But I think you're mixing apples with oranges. Female Genital Mutilation is a huge problem.. in Africa among poor rural farmers.{snip. This is as far as I got.}

Tediously predictable. You're like FedEx, you never fail to deliver.

ha ha.. well... I keep pointing it out since I think it explains many things. I have noticed how you're light on counter arguments. The best I've seen is along the lines of, no it isn't. Not particularly persuasive. I'm sorry for ruining your illusions about Islam. Not every horrible things Muslims do, they do, because they are Muslim. If you try arguing the the cause of something is Islam then any Muslim that isn't doing it is a counter argument.

 

[TSwizzle]

Tediously predictable. You're like FedEx, you never fail to deliver.

ha ha.. well... I keep pointing it out since I think it explains many things. {snip. As far as I got}

ha ha .. well.. no you don't explain anything. Your "explanations" are dogma. "things will be fine, agrarian, industrial, rural, dying out, blah, blah, blah."

So at this juncture we are done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

Saddam was playing games. And tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying.

So instead of either doing something about Saddam, or getting rid of the Sanctions so the economy could recover, the US just left the Sanctions in place. Fully knowing they were genocidal.

This is beyond any level of human cruelty that can be imagined by a normal person.

But you didn't want us doing anything about Saddam, either.

What's your fix that keeps him from WMD and yet helps his people??

 

[untermensche]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

Saddam was playing games. And tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying.

So instead of either doing something about Saddam, or getting rid of the Sanctions so the economy could recover, the US just left the Sanctions in place. Fully knowing they were genocidal.

This is beyond any level of human cruelty that can be imagined by a normal person.

But you didn't want us doing anything about Saddam, either.

What's your fix that keeps him from WMD and yet helps his people??

The way you deal with dictators who are only a danger to their own people is to strengthen the people.

The Sanctions did the opposite.

But the US had no desire for the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam. That would mean the US would not control the country.

The US wanted control, either through pliable dictators, like the Saudis or how Saddam was until he invaded Kuwait, or through invasion, which was the option it chose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The way you deal with dictators who are only a danger to their own people is to strengthen the people.

The Sanctions did the opposite.

But the US had no desire for the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam. That would mean the US would not control the country.

The US wanted control, either through pliable dictators, like the Saudis or how Saddam was until he invaded Kuwait, or through invasion, which was the option it chose.

What does that have to do with Iraq? Iraq got stomped because he became a danger to others, not merely to his own people.

 

[Jayjay]

But you didn't want us doing anything about Saddam, either.

What's your fix that keeps him from WMD and yet helps his people??

The way you deal with dictators who are only a danger to their own people is to strengthen the people.

When has that ever worked?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

Saddam was playing games. And tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying.

So instead of either doing something about Saddam, or getting rid of the Sanctions so the economy could recover, the US just left the Sanctions in place. Fully knowing they were genocidal.

This is beyond any level of human cruelty that can be imagined by a normal person.

But you didn't want us doing anything about Saddam, either.

What's your fix that keeps him from WMD and yet helps his people??

We did do something about Saddam; we put him there in the first place. The only evidence we had of him developing WMDs were the Bills of Lading from the weapons and poisonous chemical that we sold to him. He killed Kurds with gas supplied by the West.
Actually Iraq used to have a good civil service infrastructure which we dismantled and it has never really recovered.
Iraq has a recent history of persecuting Jews but that was before Saddam.

Under Saddam, women were allowed to vote, own land and run for office. Under the new regime this has gone.
In 1982 under Saddam Iraq received the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) award for eradicating illiteracy. Literacy amongst women was the highest in the region (except for Israel).

Women had equal pay and those working received six months paid paternity leave.

We only care about Iraq because of its Oil.

 

[angelo]

Agree 1000%.

And how, exactly, would a lack of political correctness have prevented the attack? What would have been done differently, and by whom?

I'm eager to see your reasoning, because the Charlie Hebdo article makes no attempt to explain the connection between PC and the Brussels attack.

It's political correctness that's causing governments to ignore advice from people who know better than to let backward ideological Islamics in by the millions. Instead of admitting the many thousands of persecuted xtians and other non muslim minorities in instead. People that will integrate with Western culture instead of people claiming to be fleeing from persecution but who when their numbers reach high enough want to introduce their way of life they left behind!

 

[bigfield]

And how, exactly, would a lack of political correctness have prevented the attack? What would have been done differently, and by whom?

I'm eager to see your reasoning, because the Charlie Hebdo article makes no attempt to explain the connection between PC and the Brussels attack.

It's political correctness that's causing governments to ignore advice from people who know better than to let backward ideological Islamics in by the millions.

It's more likely that the policymakers are not so stupid as to base their policies on the opinions of pseudo-experts like Bill French or some Henny Penny bloggers.

Instead of admitting the many thousands of persecuted xtians and other non muslim minorities in instead.

Which European countries are refusing to grant refuge to non-Muslim asylum seekers?

People that will integrate with Western culture instead of people claiming to be fleeing from persecution but who when their numbers reach high enough want to introduce their way of life they left behind!

:laughing-smiley-014

Your arithmetic much be spectacularly poor if you think that this is a possibility.

 

[untermensche]

The way you deal with dictators who are only a danger to their own people is to strengthen the people.

The Sanctions did the opposite.

But the US had no desire for the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam. That would mean the US would not control the country.

The US wanted control, either through pliable dictators, like the Saudis or how Saddam was until he invaded Kuwait, or through invasion, which was the option it chose.

What does that have to do with Iraq? Iraq got stomped because he became a danger to others, not merely to his own people.

In February 2001 before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people Colin Powell spoke in Egypt. This is what he said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

You sir are full of shit.

It is people like you that are the problem. A supporter of US terrorism.

 

[angelo]

The REAL news on the front of Europe submitting volutarily...not on your life. Greece and Turkey are agreeing to stop some peoples' migrations and send them back to Turkey...a country known for unadmitted genocide. How fucking handy that Turkey is there. Do you suppose Turkey submits voluntarily? This all is the result not of ISIS forming fifteen years ago (it did not). This is the result of continuous European and Jewish military intervention in the Middle East however for far longer than that. You keep pounding these countries into the dust and you get ISIS...a kind of hopeless suicidal revenge seeking thing...but it is only the RESULT of foreign intervention on behalf of fanatic Israeli Zionists and oil exploiters. One of the biggest myths of all is that the Saudis are somehow a U.S. ally.

Right on the button as I expected. Any excuse to blame the Jews for the troubles of theocratic islamic countries who have been fighting each other and any other culture since their bloodthirsty founder Mo was a young warmonger.

- - - Updated - - -

It's political correctness that's causing governments to ignore advice from people who know better than to let backward ideological Islamics in by the millions.

It's more likely that the policymakers are not so stupid as to base their policies on the opinions of pseudo-experts like Bill French or some Henny Penny bloggers.

Instead of admitting the many thousands of persecuted xtians and other non muslim minorities in instead.

Which European countries are refusing to grant refuge to non-Muslim asylum seekers?

People that will integrate with Western culture instead of people claiming to be fleeing from persecution but who when their numbers reach high enough want to introduce their way of life they left behind!

:laughing-smiley-014

Your arithmetic much be spectacularly poor if you think that this is a possibility.

Keeping your head in the sand won't change a thing!

 

[untermensche]

Right on the button as I expected. Any excuse to blame the Jews for the troubles of theocratic islamic countries who have been fighting each other and any other culture since their bloodthirsty founder Mo was a young warmonger.

Do you have one fucking inkling of human history?

Nothing but nonstop fighting between humans.

To think Islam is to blame is to be incredibly ignorant.

 

[bigfield]

Right on the button as I expected. Any excuse to blame the Jews for the troubles of theocratic islamic countries who have been fighting each other and any other culture since their bloodthirsty founder Mo was a young warmonger.

- - - Updated - - -

It's political correctness that's causing governments to ignore advice from people who know better than to let backward ideological Islamics in by the millions.

It's more likely that the policymakers are not so stupid as to base their policies on the opinions of pseudo-experts like Bill French or some Henny Penny bloggers.

Instead of admitting the many thousands of persecuted xtians and other non muslim minorities in instead.

Which European countries are refusing to grant refuge to non-Muslim asylum seekers?

People that will integrate with Western culture instead of people claiming to be fleeing from persecution but who when their numbers reach high enough want to introduce their way of life they left behind!

:laughing-smiley-014

Your arithmetic much be spectacularly poor if you think that this is a possibility.

Keeping your head in the sand won't change a thing!

Repeatedly claiming that the sky is falling won't make it so.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

Another person who overlooked the key fact: Saddam didn't spend all the money he had available for food. So long as this is true you can't blame any malnutrition deaths on the sanctions.

I don't care what the world socialist website says about it and what the UN says means little more.

No country can spend 'all its money on food'. It has to pay civil servants wages, for city infrastructures, water, gas, policing, and defence etc.

You're sticking your head ever deeper into the sand.

There was money specifically for buying food. Saddam wanted to use the money for weapons and kept playing games instead of buying food with it.

Iraq was actually exchanging oil for food. The oil was the currency. In fact some of the money was used for reparations toward Kuwait. He didn't need weapons, as we had already supplied these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
Background and design

The Oil-for-Food Programme was instituted to relieve the extended suffering of civilians as the result of the comprehensive sanctions on Iraq from the UN, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.

Security Council Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991 was introduced to allow the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food.[4]

Security Council Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to US$1.6 billion in oil to fund an Oil-For-Food Programme.[5]

After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for arrangements to be taken for the implementation of that resolution.

The Oil-for-Food Programme started in December 1996, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997. Sixty percent of Iraq's twenty-six million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.

The programme used an escrow system. Oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account possessed until 2001 by BNP Paribas bank, rather than to the Iraqi government. The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait, ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq. The remainder, the majority of the revenue, was available to the Iraqi government to purchase regulated items.

The Iraqi government was permitted to purchase only items that were not embargoed under the economic sanctions. Certain items, such as raw foodstuffs, were expedited for immediate shipment, but requests for most items, including such simple things as pencils and folic acid, were reviewed in a process that typically took about six months before shipment was authorized. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological or nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of stated purpose.

 

[angelo]

Right on the button as I expected. Any excuse to blame the Jews for the troubles of theocratic islamic countries who have been fighting each other and any other culture since their bloodthirsty founder Mo was a young warmonger.

- - - Updated - - -

It's political correctness that's causing governments to ignore advice from people who know better than to let backward ideological Islamics in by the millions.

It's more likely that the policymakers are not so stupid as to base their policies on the opinions of pseudo-experts like Bill French or some Henny Penny bloggers.

Instead of admitting the many thousands of persecuted xtians and other non muslim minorities in instead.

Which European countries are refusing to grant refuge to non-Muslim asylum seekers?

People that will integrate with Western culture instead of people claiming to be fleeing from persecution but who when their numbers reach high enough want to introduce their way of life they left behind!

:laughing-smiley-014

Your arithmetic much be spectacularly poor if you think that this is a possibility.

Keeping your head in the sand won't change a thing!

Repeatedly claiming that the sky is falling won't make it so.

Denying meteors fall from the sky again are we?

 

[TSwizzle]

Repeatedly claiming that the sky is falling won't make it so.

The sky may not come crashing down about your ears in dramatic fashion. Slowly but surely, it is being gently lowered.