Iraqi Children

[kulki]

Hi guys,
I was wondering if you guys could educate me a little on this. I am currently doing a computer project with this muslim guy from Saudi. And hes really a nice person, very decent and well mannered but has rabid anti-US feelings and hes been telling me about it. Essentially it to do with kids in Iraq. He keeps telling me how US sanctions have hurt millions of innocent Iraqi civilians. I can see his point in that sanctions dont really hurt Saddam as much as they hurt the civilians. I think US made a terrible mistake by not going after Saddam earlier. But dont u think sanctions are really cruel. This guy said something like 10 milion kids dies due to mal nourishment and lack of proper medical facilities in what was a a prosperous country before. I really would like to tell him out side of the story. But I just dont know how to justify killing so many children and innocent civilian population

 

[glenn1]

But dont u think sanctions are really cruel. This guy said something like 10 milion kids dies due to mal nourishment and lack of proper medical facilities in what was a a prosperous country before.

No, i don't think sanctions are really cruel. And if (and that's a big IF, but we'll accept it at face value for now) 10MM kids died, it's due to their "leader," not our actions. Saddam Hussein doesn't care about "his people," and trying to shift blame from someone who uses chemical weapons on his own people to a third party is pure FUD. And anyone who buys into the FUD line of argument is a bloody idiot.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If the US would lift the sanctions with Saddam still in place they would basically admit defeat at that point. He may have failed to take Quwait, but 'the mighty USA' failed to remove him from his position. As the US government doesn't want that to happen (would make them look bad) Bush wants to go after Saddam as soon as possible now, before 9/11 feelings subside even more. Now most of the US public would still support action in Iraq, and if they manage to remove Saddam from his position this time they can still claim victory.

He should have gotten rocked back then, then the Iraqi people would not have had to suffer all this much. A lot of Iraqis do not support Saddam's reign either, but the sanctions aren't making the US look good either for them.

 

[mcveigh]

tell Sadam to stop building his palaces/chemical weapons/biological weapons/ etc. then I bet there just might be some money to feed the children.

or maybe we could air drop sally struthers on him

 

[rbhawcroft]

its not as bad as it was they should be able to buy most drugs from the west with oil money, but not dual use ones, there is a big problem from the water table absorbing uranium dust from shells in the gulf war, gives a high lukemia rate, they can sell oil for food as well, so people shouldnt starve, nevertheless sanctions do crush the economy, and obviously 000's die each year for that reason. the
only solution is husseins removal, and preferably execution.
also because of the bureaucratic fools in the un all money and medicine goes to baghdad, and none ends up with the 12% of land controlled by kurds, so they are really suffering. also a lot of sophisticated technology equipment for hospitals is classified as dual use and banned. its all husseins fault for being a dictator, but he isnt going to change, so its the un's responsibility for the situation, natuarally americans pigheadedness is the major force in sanctions not being lifted, but they you have to problem of hussein tstill being inpower, cue overthrow. and then getting tough with all the regimes, that america has upto now supported, but who it is now in americas interest to force to become more democratic, and who said i was a cynic?

 

[Mister T]

I am currently doing a computer project with this muslim guy from Saudi. And hes really a nice person, very decent and well mannered

Too bad he is a moron

 

[Czar]

Its impossible to blame just one side, almost all sides to this problem deserves a part of the blame. Saddam for only taking care of himself and his hold on power. US for imposing the sanctions for this long with nothing gained from it. UN for not supplying enough aid workers to distribute the food and medical aid that has been dilivered to Iraq. And so on and on.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

In the year 2000, Iraq had a population of about 22 million. To somehow hurt 10M children that would require almost half the population to be considered children. The only way you can get the 10M number would be:
mother+father has two kids on average, and both of them are being hurt. Repeat for the entire population.

I know my views are biased, but I don't go for the "it's for the kids" thing since it's impossible to only go for the adults.

 

[rbhawcroft]

the sanctions are probably worth 2 or 3 % infant mortality per year over ten years so maybe 1/2million children under five who would have survived, pluls say 100-250 thousand people murdered by the regime or died in uprisings.

 

[kulki]

Originally posted by: glenn1

But dont u think sanctions are really cruel. This guy said something like 10 milion kids dies due to mal nourishment and lack of proper medical facilities in what was a a prosperous country before.

No, i don't think sanctions are really cruel. And if (and that's a big IF, but we'll accept it at face value for now) 10MM kids died, it's due to their "leader," not our actions. Saddam Hussein doesn't care about "his people," and trying to shift blame from someone who uses chemical weapons on his own people to a third party is pure FUD. And anyone who buys into the FUD line of argument is a bloody idiot.

well there is no denying the fact that Saddam is an evil man and deserves to be brought to justice for gross human rights violations. But my point is that sanctions were never really meant to hurt Saddam directly as much as they hurt the civilians. At the same time if there were no sanctions we would prolly be looking at an nuclear missile equipped Iraq targetting at US or our allies. So while the sanctions have served one of the purposes but the purpose has been achieved at an very high price at least as far as the Iraqi civilians are concerned. I also think that Iraqi childrens plight is a very important and araw issue in the arab world. But I fail to see how the sanctions can be stopped as long as Saddam remains in power.

 

[Czar]

I wish I could remember the link to a article I read on this, it showed a graph on how many children were dying because of lack of food and water and it had been going down for the last 10-20 years before the sanctions. The year the sanctions where put on Iraq the rate rose to levels that were around 20 years ago and then staid around the same rate untill present day.
I'm going to search a bit more

 

[rudder]

ask him about all the kurdish women and children saddam gassed. Ask him about the Iran-Iraq war that was in part started by Saddam. He caused sever economic hardships on his people because of his ambitions.

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

i feel ya

 

[Nitemare]

Tell him this is what happens in 4th world countries who would rather build a better bomb than feed their people.

US isn't starving Iraq, Saddam is starving Iraq. What other country can a ruler sit on a golden toilet, while thousands of his people starve to death every day. Iraq is it's own problem until they want us to come in and break out the can of whoopass on it's totalitarian dictator.

 

[ThePresence]

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

that doesnt get through because the aid doesnt get dilivered internaly in iraq.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

that doesnt get through because the aid doesnt get dilivered internaly in iraq.

Well, who's fault is that if not Saddam's? Its nobody elses problem that he his government is so inept.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

that doesnt get through because the aid doesnt get dilivered internaly in iraq.

Well, who's fault is that if not Saddam's? Its nobody elses problem that he his government is so inept.

UNICEF manages the distribution of the food and medicine, but doesnt have the manpower to do it.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

that doesnt get through because the aid doesnt get dilivered internaly in iraq.

Well, who's fault is that if not Saddam's? Its nobody elses problem that he his government is so inept.

UNICEF manages the distribution of the food and medicine, but doesnt have the manpower to do it.

Umm, I thought we were allowing Saddam to sell oil for medicine and food. After he does that, he gives it over to UNICEF? Interesting, I didnt know that.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Umm, I thought we were allowing Saddam to sell oil for medicine and food. After he does that, he gives it over to UNICEF? Interesting, I didnt know that.

thats the deal, Iraq can sell oil for food and medicine and UNICEF manages the distribution to make sure its not spent on something "stupid".


btw, found some numbers
http://www.childinfo.org/cmr/Kh98/PART04.pdf

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: rudder
ask him about all the kurdish women and children saddam gassed. Ask him about the Iran-Iraq war that was in part started by Saddam. He caused sever economic hardships on his people because of his ambitions.

Yes sanctions are bad, but as far as I know humanitarian aid gets through readily. Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. More than likely their illustrious leader siphones those funds for military use.

Most Iraqis do not like Saddam any more than you do, but they can do very little about it except demonstrate once, causing their family to get raped/tortured/murdered. They live under a dictatorship, and most would have cheered on the idea of the US kicking Saddam out after the Gulf War. But that did not happen, and now the common people suffer the consequences.

Iraq is a dictatorship, and unless that changes things are not going to improve there. Imagine your dad beating all the kids as well as his wife, and then, in the middle of the coldest winter, the energy company cutting off the power. When you complain to them about it they point at your dad and say 'Ask him about his wife and kids!'... As if you didn't know, as if you didn't get beaten yourself. The Iraqi population can't help what Saddam does to the Kurds any more than you could help it if Bush suddenly decided to drop a nuke on LA.

 

Originally posted by: mcveighor maybe we could air drop sally struthers on him

Weapons of mass destruction are frowned upon.

 

[glenn1]

I am currently doing a computer project with this muslim guy from Saudi. And hes really a nice person, very decent and well mannered but has rabid anti-US feelings and hes been telling me about it.

Why not just tell him the truth, that he's an ignorant ass and doesn't have a pot to piss in insofar as complaining about the U.S. He comes from a country which let 15 girls burn to death in a building fire rather than run the risk of rescue workers seeing them without head coverings. For good measure, you can inform him how senior U.S. policy makers are now starting to consider Saudi Arabia a hostile state, and are in fact receiving briefings from think-tanks such as the Rand Institute on the subject. Saudi Arabia would be a perfectly legitimate target for the U.S. to seek a regime change in, and contingency plans are being made to do exactly that. That should shut his ignorant ass up pretty quickly.

Its impossible to blame just one side, almost all sides to this problem deserves a part of the blame.

Will you please, for once in your misbegotten life, stop making excuses for evil men? The West in general, and the U.S. in particular, have no blame whatsoever in the suffering of the people of Iraq. Iraq is facing starvation for the same reason North Korea is, because the country is ruled by an aggressive megalomaniac who values control more than the welfare of his people. Period.

Most Iraqis do not like Saddam any more than you do, but they can do very little about it except demonstrate once, causing their family to get raped/tortured/murdered. They live under a dictatorship, and most would have cheered on the idea of the US kicking Saddam out after the Gulf War. But that did not happen, and now the common people suffer the consequences.

Yeah, i remember the Tories saying more or less the same thing during the American Revolutionary War.

 

[Czar]

glenn1,
did you even read my reasons?

 

[dribgnikcom]

Because he talks nice it means he is not a rabid liar?

He is brainwashed, spouting propaganda, that's all.

He would kill you if he could get away with it.

Watch out.