<p>If everyone in the world was really really nice, only cared about helping others, resources weren’t finite, disease wasn’t a reality, and everyone was equal…</p>
<p>…then we still probably would have fighting.</p>
<p>If we don’t reach for the ideal, we will never hope to even get near it</p>
<p>From the great philosopher, Yoda</p>
<p>Always in motion is the future</p>
<p>(so it is not always set in the past)</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>I have a quick question for you. In several of your posts you have mentioned the fact that the Clinton administration killed Iraqi children throught he imposition of economic sanctions and embargoes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you show me where exactly you got this number from?</p>
<p>The half a million comes from Madeline Albright (I quoted it in post #21.) UNICEF came up with a number of 442,000, but they did that by averaging years including 1997-1998, which were Oil for Food years, when deaths were lower. (You can find their report on-line.) These were just those under 5, though. Didn’t count the other half million deaths among older kids/adults.</p>
<p>Wasn’t just embargoes, though. The water treatment plants were targeted and bombed. I worked through the mid-90s among Quakers raising funds to repair those plants, deliberately ignoring the embargo, and am proud of it.</p>
<p>But the number did not come from Albright, it came from Stahl, the journalist who was interviewing her. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the UNICEF report only estimated that IF the infant mortality rate had continued to decline through the 1990’s as it had in the 1980’s, there would have been fewer deaths. While sanctions undoubtably contributed to this leveling off, the fact that Saddam fought two wars over that period of time, incurred enormous foreign debts and increasingly became more dictatorial should also be considered. Therefore, to place the full blame of the increased morality rates on sanctions is hgihly questionable. Finally, it should be noted that Saddam had the option to implement the Oil-for-Food program in 1991, the year sanctions were implemented, he chose not to. Should not he then share the majority of blame for inflicting widescale suffering on his own people?</p>
<p>I am not claiming that sanctions resulted in increased levels of infant mortality, there is undeniable proof that this was the case. But it was not the 500,000 that is routinely thrown about. It was far closer to 227,000, which while obviously still a tragedy, is not nearly the same as half a million.</p>
<p>Finally, many of these casualties were the result of Gulf War actions, contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system, etc. While I understand that water plants were targeted, those are the sort of places that get hit during wars, and please assure me that you are not against the liberation of Kuwait? Furthermore, Saddam’s use of existing resources for the construciton of palaces, military salaries and patronage to insure his ongoing power undoubtably drained resources that could have instead gone to supporting his failing infrastructure. </p>
<p>Also, isn’t it somewhat telling that the infant mortality rate decreased under sanctions in the Kurdish north, while increasing in the south? Wouldn’t that indicate at least some responsibility on Saddam’s part?</p>
<p>Realized a typo:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should be “sanctions did not result”</p>
<p>Why do people not realize that Iraq is NOT a democracy in the mold of the US and probably will NEVER become one? Simply look at their Constitution. One of the first things it does is establish the Shari’a (the Islamic law from Koran) as the law of the land. What is the other country that does this? Iran. What is another regime that did this? The Taliban. </p>
<p>And why do people not realize that we have not changed Iraq from a country ruled by a totalitarian government into a democratic country, but rather into a country embroiled in a nasty civil war? Although Sadaam was a dictator, at least he held together the state and prevented this sort of ethic/religious strife. (Not supporting him here, it’s a factual point.)</p>
<p>And when you guys say “democracy,” please just say “American democracy.” Recognize the American (cultural/political or otherwise) hegemony you’re spreading, I’m certain you don’t want Iraq to become a democracy like India or Russia.</p>
<p>And when the neo-cons say they believe in the “domino-theory” of democracy, please just say that you just really want the entire world to be America. After all, it’s American values, American democracy, American culture, etc. that you want to spread here.</p>
<p>And leaving Iraq MIGHT’VE solved the problem before we were embroiled in the civil war. As Representative Murtha (distiniguished war veteran, usually the go-to man in the House for military matters) said - We have become the CATALYST for violence. The longer we stay, the more the insurgency grows. But now we’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war. I think we may need to stay in this one, but if we stay, we have to stay to win. If we lose, we’ll lose soldiers and the situation will turn into a quagmire via Vietnam which will cause the same abuse of human rights as in My Lai (and is currently happening) because of the frustation.</p>
<p>I think the reason why the American military, the greatest in the world, is stuck on the losing side of a war of attrition in Iraq, and why the Israeli military, one of the greatest in the world, is going to be stuck on the losing side of a war of attrition in Lebanon, is that they have not adapted to this new style of warfare. This is not traditional war. They are not trying to eradicate a formal, established army of a country, they are trying to eradicate a belief. And that is impossible.</p>
<p>“Also, isn’t it somewhat telling that the infant mortality rate decreased under sanctions in the Kurdish north, while increasing in the south? Wouldn’t that indicate at least some responsibility on Saddam’s part?”</p>
<p>Actually, the contrary. Besides not bombing wastewater treatment plants in the north, the U.S. continued to funnel aid to the Kurds during the entire period. (Peter Galbraith is very eloquent on this point.) So it in fact indicates that the deaths were specifically the result of American action. And bombing did not stop with the end of the First Gulf War, but continued right up, and including the Christmas bombings of 1998. </p>
<p>The 1999 UNICEF Report cites a total rate of child mortality deaths (for those under 5 only!) 1994-1998, and ascribes them to the period 1991-1998. The 440,000 figure is obtained simply by excluding the rate of deaths that occurred following the implementation of Oil for Food. So the actual rate of childhood mortality 0-16 was likely closer to 700,000. And forget counting adults, or those who died from easily dealt with complications of childbirth for lack of simple antibiotics. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization reported 567,000 deaths ages 0-5, through 1995.</p>
<p>But, as Albright indicates, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and how many deaths it was causing. If successful, it would have eliminated an entire generation of Iraqis, and left the country defenseless for another generation. Quite simply, an attempt at genocide. All to eliminate WMD that had been destroyed in 1991, except not really. The point was that if the pain was too great, perhaps a group of generals, aided by the U.S. would rise up and overthrow Hussein. But they didn’t - perhaps the personal risk was too great, or just as likely, they had dead children at the hands of the U.S. as well. </p>
<p>You will not find a family in Iraq that is not aware of how they lost their children. Some will blame it on Saddam Hussein; more will blame it on the Americans. One thing is for sure, though: when it comes to a level of trust on the part of Iraqis, they are about equal. It doesn’t matter how “I” see it - but how Iraqis do. And it ain’t very pretty.</p>