It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nearly Twice as Many Iraqi Children Going Hungry Since Saddam's Ouster, U.N. Expert Says

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
ill planned Bush's war on Iraq

I disagree. Not just for the sake of disagreeing you understand. The principle characteristic of this war was that it was done with an extremely small invasion and occupation force. Since US troop presence in saudi arabia was a principle problem that bin ladin and other jihadis have with the world, this is no small consideration. The low occupation force was calculated so as to prevent an even larger uprising and to keep resentment amoung the general iraqi population low. A massed US presence wouldn't have been feasible, short of either a draft or more participation of western nations.

and WMD's was in the first place. I have always felt that Rumsfeld #ed up by not having enough troops on the ground in the beginning of this fiasco.
I don't see a larger troop pressence as being helpful, out side of the issue of using teh troops as aid workers. They definitly fouled up an under-estimated the resistance. Perhaps if they had gotten that right they'd've not been willing to run the risk of having the entire project fail post war due to the terrorists obstructing reconstruction.
Then again, perhaps if the UN had helped the war effort when it was obvious that the US was going thru with it then the resistance wouldn't be able to appeal and hope for international intervention and american 'war weariness' and perhaps the UN other international aid groups would be able to participate in the reconstruction.
As far as the resistance itself, outside of using the troops to either protect or serve as aid workers, I don't see a larger troop pressence as being a guarantor of success. THe US vastly outnumbered the vietnamese. In reality, any major army is going to outnumber guerillas anyway. More troops would probably in the end simply mean more casualties for the americans.


We are to blame for this nightmare in Iraq, bad planning,

The people killing aid workers and destroying reconstruction outposts and kindapping and cutting the heads off of civilians are the ones to blame. THe US has a responsibility to put an end to it and to fight against it, and it certainly is. Spain helped fight the war and they bailed out. Some other countries that were invovled in the war bailed out, and I don't think any one has jumped in and said 'you have too few troops, here is a division or two of ours to help occupy'. Nothing is preventing the germans from doing that, or the French. The US is fighting the occupation. It hasn't been completely succesful. The insurgents haven't exactly been succesful in making life better for the iraqis.



and at least the next 10 years of US occupation and involvement before we can pull out.

It is amazing how few people seem to understand that. The US is going to be in iraq, in one way or another before anything is really accomplished. Heck, the US is still in kosovo.



Its a good location for us.

Isreal fufils any geostrategic purposes that iraq does, short of surrounding iran when in combo with afghanistan and the pakistani alliance.




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Sorry but I will have to say that even military personnel agree that It was not enough troops in Iraq to take over the security of the country right after invasion.

And that is the truth, no border control and open and wide looting, that happen to be the worst mistake in the invasion.

People were not under control and was let to go rampant.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
nygdan sorry hun, sometimes i just don't have the words to reply to you, (shakes head) i'm getting old.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Carseller4
i just wonder how many children where raped while doing this study? It was a UN study right?


They must have Catholic priests working for the UN.
As said before though, this wasn't a UN study that reported these figures.


Catholic priests or UN Reps....neither are to be trusted with children. I hope the Catholic thing wasn't suppose to be used against me.

I'm Baptist.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Before the war, all we heard was about how a bazillion children were starving to death everyday because of the mean old UN embargo against Saddam.

I have no doubt that things are tough in Iraq, but if it is so, I would have to lay the blame on the insurrectionists rather than pining for the Ba'athist regime.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
i just wonder how many children where raped while doing this study? It was a UN study right?

Ha ha, not funny....
Besides those where Moroccan...


Seriously, the UN has never had credibility, why should it start now?

Was it credible enough in 1950?
1991?
You sure "rallied round the UN flag" then didnt you?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
, sometimes i just don't have the words to reply to you,

Why, what was so unusual? Perhaps I overstate the ineffectiveness of more troops, tho i do clearly state that it was a mistake to not have more. Its not an unimaginable blunder to think that the country, ruled by a brutal dictator, wouldn't have much of an insurgency, and that the danger of having too many troops 'oppressing' the people would lead to an insurgency. It was obviously an error, but not a horrible one. Again, the UN and most of the west didn't seem to think it was obvious enough to help occupy the country after the war. Aid in occupation and stabilization wouldn't've been a 'vindication' of the war itself.

I mean, if the US is already overstretched as is,and if the fear of a draft is so great, and if the national guardsmen shoudln't be there at all, and if soldiers shouldn't be having their tours extended, then how could there have been more troops? THe US decided that war was necessary. Once that decision is made, that of all things war, horrible and disgusting war, is going to have to play out, once you've decided that something as horrible as that to begin with has to happen, you can't not go thru with it because of concerns with logistical problems in supplying the occupied population.
And, agian, I can understand why france isn't there or germany, but, why not the UN? If the country is so unstable, and the US really botched it, and something needs to be done, then why aren't there blue helmets there? That would be something of a humiliation for the US and a vindication for the UN.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The UN cant come in unless asked....and with the US haveing an influence I dont see them letting that happen.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by worldwatcher
, sometimes i just don't have the words to reply to you,

Why, what was so unusual?


I can't answer for WW, but it may have something to do with these comments.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Since US troop presence in saudi arabia was a principle problem that bin ladin and other jihadis have with the world, this is no small consideration. The low occupation force was calculated so as to prevent an even larger uprising and to keep resentment amoung the general iraqi population low.


We didn't want to use more troops in case we upset Osama? Please...



Originally posted by Nygdan
The US is fighting the occupation. It hasn't been completely succesful.


Errr... The US IS the occupation.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
We didn't want to use more troops in case we upset Osama?

Think about it. How does bin ladin rally his troops? How does he get muslims in that part of the world to attack the US? He talks about the occupation of arabia and the pressence of american troops, whoring their women, drinking alcohol, disobeying tradition, humiliating them. The message resonates with the public over there. Obviously bin ladin isn't directly the concern, its whoever might start saying, post-war, 'why are there so may americans here, are we just going to stand by while these jerks stride around our great country'.



Errr... The US IS the occupation.

Ah, yes, my mistake. Should read 'the US is fighting the insurgency'.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Think about it. How does bin ladin rally his troops? How does he get muslims in that part of the world to attack the US? He talks about the occupation of arabia and the pressence of american troops, whoring their women, drinking alcohol, disobeying tradition, humiliating them. The message resonates with the public over there. Obviously bin ladin isn't directly the concern, its whoever might start saying, post-war, 'why are there so may americans here, are we just going to stand by while these jerks stride around our great country'.


I really hope this wasn't a reason given by the administration for low troop numbers.


The one thing that is respected in the middle east is swift and decisive use of force. There'd be very few insurgents now if there were enough troops to disarm the population and close the borders, clean up behind themselves and give the country back to the citizens. Allah might be great, but the fear of sudden violent death is usually greater.

Your argument only works when the 'terrorists' have had enough time to realize we're too weak to control the situation, then they have the luxury of saying whatever they want to rally support.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I really hope this wasn't a reason given by the administration for low troop numbers.

They gave no reason, they simply said it was enough. I can't think of any other reason for it. Its a perfectly fine reason. They didn't expect any insurgency, they figured no one would want to support saddam or anything like that, and that by having a massive army filling their country that that might spark an insurgency.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I really hope this wasn't a reason given by the administration for low troop numbers.

They gave no reason, they simply said it was enough. I can't think of any other reason for it. Its a perfectly fine reason. They didn't expect any insurgency, they figured no one would want to support saddam or anything like that, and that by having a massive army filling their country that that might spark an insurgency.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Nygdan]


Uh no one thought there would be an insurgancy?!?! That is stupidity in of itself. The Iraqi's trusted America at one point then they(The USA) pulled out while encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up, only to get slaughtered... This is not the War on Terror fyi, it is stupidy and a distraction. Where the # is Bin Laden!?! He's still loose planning who knows what while the US is bogged down in a Occupation that has no end in sight. Nygdan when did you start wearing Neo-con stripes?

[edit on 31-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Carseller4
i just wonder how many children where raped while doing this study? It was a UN study right?

Ha ha, not funny....
Besides those where Moroccan...


Seriously, the UN has never had credibility, why should it start now?

Was it credible enough in 1950?
1991?
You sure "rallied round the UN flag" then didnt you?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


When I said never, I really meant never. Rally around the UN flag, you got to be joking


USA! USA!



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
When I said never, I really meant never.

Oh so during the korean war it wasnt "Credible" or when iraq invaded kuwait?
Oh no they where just "exceptions" and dont count, yeah thats what I thought...cant bear to accept you actually stood beside the UN and helped create it and actually believed in peace....once...


Rally around the UN flag, you got to be joking

USA! USA!

Well unless you call orginising a task force in 1991 "rallying" then I suppose your right..oh BTW...tell that the UN has no credibility to the families of the:
16,000 dead UN forces in korea...
The 24 dead british soldiers (9 by US fire I might add)....
The list goes on..



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Why is anyone surprised about this?

We let the genocide in the Sudan go unchecked, all we do is tell them how bad they are for killing their people. Therefore, the whole invasion to oust the evil Saddam is bullsheet.

Can you neo-con lovers actually admit that the kid situation is WORSE now than before? Is that so hard to admit? Regardless of who's to blame, is it hard to admit that these poor kids are worse off now than before?

Damn, you people are a prime example of how effective the brainwashing has become. Neo-cons say that the Iraqis are sub-human, no one complains.

Why do you people blame others instead of thinking about the victims here? I'm like Bangin, this stuff makes me sick...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Thank you truth for pointing out the error of our ways...
Its easier to blame someone else than help someone...
Thank you again truth..



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The whole thing is a bad situation, but I am not sure at this point that the validity of reports coming from Iraq should be unquestioned.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join