UN: US troops starve Iraqi citizens

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Oct 15, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4344136.stm

    Mr.Ziegler said that in Falluja, Tal Afar and Samarra, Iraqi and US-led forces had cut off or restricted food and water to encourage residents to flee before assaults on entrenched Sunni fighters over the past year.

    Do you think that full blockade (including blocking of food supplies) is a right method of warfare?
  2. Yes, but were the population told at the same time, that if they moved to GRID 123456 , there would be tented accomodation, food and healthcare facilities? It's one thing to say "starved out" it's another thing to say "Supplies cut off to motivate people to move from an area of imminient danger, to a safe area temporairily"

    Incidentally, this is what I suggested in my e-mail to Secretary Powell during the build up to Fallujah, but it probably got the circular file treatment anyway :D
  3. The cynic might point out that the difference between starvation or motivation to move to a safe area is fairly irrelevant, given that the very next thing to be said was "we're now going to blow up your homes to save them". Why do they hate us again ?
  4. I suppose in a few years time, when freedom and peace finally descend across the length and breadth of Iraq, there'll be a McDonalds on every corner. And in between slurps of sickly milkshake and gulps of reconstituted camel burger, the portly populace will look back and laugh at the folly of resisting the US mission to 'free' them.
  5. Whereas the Russian army's conduct in the Caucasus has been widely lauded as a model of humanitarianism and restraint, right, Sergey?
  6. Andy!

    First of all, I don't believe that strategy of American troops was inhuman. Maybe there were some (insignificant) points that (formally) contradict to Geneva convention. But I think that TEMPORARY cuts of food supplies in besieged areas is better than threats to kill anybody who is unwilling to leave these areas.

    If you know about UN's reports about violations of Geneva convention by Russian troops in the Caucasus then let me know. It would be interesting to discuss them.
  7. Hi Andy!

    Thank you for sources but I failed to find there a reference to any UN's report about violation of Geneva conventions by Russian troops. As to human rights organisations then they use to blame every country on daily basis with or without facts. Usually they produce only common words.


    Hear about it first time. Have they facts? I doubt. But we read in the article

    How it is possible? Checking residents' papers on place is sensless if anyway all males would be detained. Do you see a contradiction there?


    So I ask you: had NATO troops commited war crimes in the Balkans? Personally, I don't think so.


    Maybe Russian troops helped the Chechens to capture the school?
  8. Perhaps Mr Jean Zeigler might like to consider the situation that this so called infringement of human rights occurred. He might then have a better perspective on the matter. Regardless of the right or wrong that created the situation how who he propose advancing the stalemate of terrorist attacks in an area heavily populated by civilians? Lets look at the options available to the spams:
    1. Do nothing and put up with incresing attacks on soldiers and civilians.
    2. Carry out your assault with the civilians in place.
    3. Gently encourage civillians to temporarily relocate even though terrorists are showing no such constraint in encouraging them to remain.
    4. Apply a tough but reasonable degree of force/motivation to encourage relocation away from what was certain to become an area of intense violence.

    Finally I would like to ask Mr Zeigler how many Iraqi's died from starvation or received medical attention as a result of starvation?

    PS I hate this UN holier than though cr*p when their own behaviour is hardly a beacon of light on all things Iraq.
  9. Absolutely agree. Mr. Ziegler used formal approach. Suppose that American troops stop a lorry with bread and milk. There are no weapons in the lorry, only food. According to 4th Geneva convention technically the troops should allow the lorry to enter into besieged city. Can we say that in this (imaginary) situation Americans intentionally starved Iraqi civilians? I think that we can't (however starvation could took place). No doubt that Amrecans wanted to avoid as many innocent deaths as possible.

    But probably there were formal violations of Genenva convention. So our American friends should plan their operations very carefully. Even formal violation is a violation anyway.
  10. Sergey, what you suggest is sometimes not necessarily the right thing to do in war. Again, in Iraq just as we had in Northern Ireland you have one side being held and judged to a certain set of rules opposed violently by terrorists who have no such constraints. I'm not suggesting that those constraints are lifted but I just make the point of the difficulty involved. My second point is the complexity when the rules are simply applied to the situation with no regard to perspective. Is breaking a rule in order to limit civilian casualties not operating in the overall spirit of the Geneva convention?
  11. I have't posted much on this subject simply because the UN has little to no creditability with me. Its a place where international bureaucrats and politicians can go to get a paid retirement, Free trips and other perks with no oversight .

    Jean Ziegler has his reasons for making the charges.

    If and that's a big if ,food was withheld. It would have to be so people would leave a area so they don't killed in that combat zone. Well fed but dead is not my Idea of being Humane.

    What is the morality of the of the Terrorist using people as human shields. They are hiding in cities knowing that the people in the cities are providing cover,and coalition forces will hesitate to kill innocent people. They should fight in the open so they don't inconvenence their fellow citizens. Mr Ziegler should personaly delevier that message to Zargawi.
  12. By the way after a google search on Jean Ziegler and reading through a long list of entries I have yet to find a single utterrance of criticism by him of the terrorist groups operating in Iraq. Is he just another anti-American on the UN. As the senior spokesman for Human Rights at the UN where is the condemnation of terrorist atrocities in Iraq?
  13. The UN is very much in the 'glasshouse' - Oil for Food, child-sex abuse in the Congo - and really shouldn't be throwing stones.
  14. Mr.Ziegler is rather anti-Israel than anti-American and Iraq is not in the focus of his attention.