Iraq’s Poisoned Water



Allies deliberately poisoned Iraq public water supply in Gulf War investigation

Sunday Herald (Scotland)
Sept. 17, 2000

The US-led allied forces deliberately destroyed Iraq’s water supply during the Gulf War — flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention and causing thousands of civilian deaths.

Since the war ended in 1991 the allied nations have made sure that any attempts to make contaminated water safe have been thwarted. A respected American professor now intends to convene expert hearings in a bid to pursue criminal indictments under international law against those responsible.

Professor Thomas J Nagy, Professor of Expert Systems at George Washington University with a doctoral fellowship in public health, told the Sunday Herald:

“Those who saw nothing wrong in producing [this plan], those who ordered its production and those who knew about it and have remained silent for 10 years would seem to be in violation of Federal Statute and perhaps have even conspired to commit genocide.”



Professor Nagy obtained a minutely detailed seven-page document prepared by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, issued the day after the war started, entitled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities and circulated to all major allied Commands. It states that Iraq had gone to considerable trouble to provide a supply of pure water to its population. It had to depend on importing specialised equipment and purification chemicals, since water is “heavily mineralised and frequently brackish”.

The report stated:

“Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidents, if not epidemics, of disease and certain pure-water dependent industries becoming incapacitated.”

The report concludes:

“Full degradation of the water treatment system probably will take at least another six months.”



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

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states:

“It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” and includes foodstuffs, livestock and “drinking water supplies and irrigation works”.



The results of the allied bombing campaign were obvious when Dr David Levenson visited Iraq immediately after the Gulf War, on behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He said:

“For many weeks people in Baghdad — without television, radio, or newspapers to warn them — brought their drinking water from the Tigris, in buckets.

“Dehydrated from nausea and diarrhoea, craving liquids, they drank more of the water that made them sick in the first place.”

Water-borne diseases in Iraq today are both endemic and epidemic. They include typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and polio (which had previously been eradicated), along with a litany of others. A child with dysentery in 1990 had a one in 600 chance of dying — in 1999 it was one in 50.

The then US Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War. Dr Levenson estimates many thousands died from polluted water.

Chlorine and essential equipment parts needed to repair and clear the water system have been banned from entering the country under the UN “hold” system. (American sanctions)

Ohio Democrat Representative Tony Hall has written to American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, saying he shares concerns expressed by UNICEF about the “profound effects the deterioration of Iraq’s water supply and sanitation systems on children’s health”. Diarrhoeal diseases he says are of “epidemic proportions” and are “the prime killer of children under five”.

“Holds on contracts for water and sanitation are a prime reason for the increase in sickness and death.” Of 18 contracts, wrote Hall, all but one on hold were placed by the government in the US.

Contracts were for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers and other water industry related items.

“If water remains undrinkable, diseases will continue and mortality rates will rise,” said the Iraqi trade minister Muhammed Mahdi Salah. The country’s health ministry said that more than 10,000 people died in July of embargo-related causes — 7457 were children, with diarrhoeal diseases one of the prime conditions.

In July 1989, the figure was 378. UNICEF does not dispute the figures. The problem will not be helped by plans for the giant Ilisu Dam project (to which the British government is to give £200 million in export credit guarantees), which will give Turkey entire control of the water flow to Iraq and Syria.

Constructors Balfour Beatty write in their environmental impact report, that for the three years of construction, water flow to Iraq will be reduced by 40%. Iraq has also suffered a three year drought, with the Tigris the lowest in living memory.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...sonedWater.html

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

3000 deliberate deaths in the WTC apparently justified two wars with horrendous losses, how many deaths if this happened to america would it justify?

but i guess its OK, because "we're the good guys"TM.

First point:

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3605557.stm :



~~~~~~~~~~~~

Second point:

This article reminds of a line from Team America: World Police:

"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. " -Sean Penn

~~~~~~~~~~

Third point:

Gnu, you should be ashemed of yourself for brining such a classic half truth ladden article... A tactic that you and many other neo-lefties often blame Bush and the other neo-cons of commiting.

Somehow when the report states:



The article turns it into:



Than the article decides to decieve the readers about the very nature of the "IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES" report (full text can be found at http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/di...11rept_91.html) . The article fails to mention that the report compiled in order to evaluate the effects of UN Sanctions against Iraq on Iraq's water supply. Instead the report coaxes us, the readers, to believe that the report was compiled as an outline of the destruction of Iraqs water treatment as a result of the war (clearly ilustrated by the connection of the last line of the report (again taken somewhat out of context) and the bombing).

I am not in the mood to analyze every line of the article, but IMHO the claim that the destruction of the electricity producing dams goes against the Geneva Convention Charter, is ludicrious, they are valid targets. War is a bitch.

~~~~~~~~~~

Point 4:

The title should be "Who are" not "Who is"...

What's your favourite pizza TOPping?

After rereading your sig... I really need to watch that...

under sanctions.

please show a comparison BEFORE the US imposed its criminal blockade.



WTF is your point here? surely we're not back to the childish "well if you don't support the american holocaust on iraq, then you support saddam" line of crap are we?



so its an untruth is it? i really hope that straw your grasping can hold your weight.

most people in the UK also prefer bottled water to tap water, so what?
the iraqi regime, as the report says, did indeed iam to make pure water available to its citizens, pure water however has a couple of meanings:

1. tastes like the purest spring water, fresh from a bubbling mountainside.
2. contains few bacteria, to not poison those innocent children with nasty terminal illnesses like diareahhhah (whatever :P), typhoid, and all the other wonderful virusses and bugs that live in intreated water, and kill the majority of third world children.

sure, 1. they had a problem with, so the rich people bought imported bottled water, but i suspect the majority of the population were *extremely thankful* for the eforts to provide SAFE drinking water, drinking water that DIDN'T kill their children.

just a guess.

as for them being a valid bombing target, you need to get some toilet roll for your mouth.

clean water and electricity are vital compnents of CIVILIAN life, that the military also use them is utterly irrelevant - would you support the poisoning of all of america's or israels food producing fields (under total sanctions) as the military also use the food?

yes, war is a bitch - but CIVILISED people try to limit the harm done to non-combatants, that was why the geneva convention was drawn up.

it seems since war drifted far from our shores such niceties seem to mean less.



well, that just destroys me.

The best figure I could come up with is 160m (source).

Regardless, In 2000 Iraq spent over $1.3 billion on its military (source). How the hell do you excuse the health spending on sanctions. How the hell do explain the palaces that were built for Saddam and his cronies?

The UN Sactions were impossed by the UN, not by the US, because Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (don't bother spinning this) and its other abuses. And since Iraq never complied with Resolution 687 (source), what reason were those sanctions criminal (except the Oil For Food missmangement/theft/fiasco)...


I included the quote as a satire of the article... Plus it is funny...

~~~~~~~~

Again, reread and address my main point: "The article fails to mention that the report compiled in order to evaluate the effects of UN Sanctions against Iraq on Iraq's water supply. Instead the report coaxes us, the readers, to believe that the report was compiled as an outline of the destruction of Iraqs water treatment as a result of the war (clearly ilustrated by the connection of the last line of the report (again taken somewhat out of context) and the bombing)."

I never condoned the attacks on the water treatment facilities. If they were delibratly targeted (which I somehow doubt since they have next to no stratigic military value) I would condemn it.

As for the electric production sources, they are vital for communication and military operation and they should be taken out quickly.

People especially in the middle-east can survive without electricity for a long while...

i do not.

saddam was a BAD MAN. i thought you knew that?

the article, and my 'angle' is that the US caused massive loss of civilian life by this attack on vital water supplies, and the prevention of parts to repair it.



oh please, whilst the UN letterhead may have been on the paper, back in the 90s it was really quite obvious who called the shots - it was US and UK ships and planes that maintained the blockade, that slughtered indirectly so many hundreds of thouands of innocents, mainly children, and we all know what Bitch Albright siad about THAT.





yeah, i got a smile as well reading it ^_^


just wanted to know why you posted it, is all.



the water facilities were deliberately targetted, there can be little doubt about that, considering ALL plants were attacked and destroyed, in the deliberate "degradation of iraqs infrastructure" utilised by the US/UK.

it was not just this professor raising hell over human rights/geneva convention abuses, the whole global human rights lobby was screaming about it - but how often did it get into the 'liberal media'?

The sanctions deliberately harmed iraqs ability to move back to a normal life, not only were spare parts for the treatment plants prevented, but also painkillers for the children suffering from cancers caused by the allies use of DU.

sometimes to be the 'good guy' you have to let up a little in punishment - you don't kick the little kid any more once he's on the ground, for instance.

my question is how the UK/US can claim ANY moral legitamcy after what they have done to iraq?



bit i am heartened to hear you condemn these attacks. Perhaps theres hope for you after all :P

Barbarians: Whichever side has not yet invented showers.

Civilised: Whichever side I'm in.

Answer your question?

Top... I'll reply as soon as I have some time

wow, I just realized that I have become a troll.

Well thats no fun.

SB: Shouldn't it also be thsoe who actually USE the showers?

I don't think you want to include Russian.

Or people who actually use soap during taking the showers.

Well i just think´s it nice that you have picked up a topic whitch i wrote some about a couple of years ago when i first arrived at the bord...


Of course you hit the powerplants no questions asked, But no you dont blow up the dammes, and water cleaning facilities and other vital social functions..

Likewise you don´t blow up hospitals just becuse soldiers are being treated there...

What US allso did was that they went on bombing raids against water facilities after the war to "upphold the sanctions", and refused to let the iraqis to import chemicals to clean water...