This war saves lives.... Iraqi's 5 times more likely to die from sanctions than the war

[Alistar7]

Estimates vary of the real death toll from the 12 years of sanctions, but nearly everyone agress well over 1 million have perished. I will use 1 million but bear in mind there are reports of up to 1.5 million, so this % could even be dramatically larger.

In 12 years 1 million Iraqi's have died due to sanctions, about 7,000 a month at that rate.

In 3 weeks of war there have been @ 750-1000 civilian deaths ( some military dressed as civilian, some killed by Saddam's forces, nothing new there). Let's assume there will be @ 1200 by the time the war reaches it's one month mark.

That clearly shows you are at least 5 times more likely to die as a result of the sanctions than the war itself.

Now let's explore the French, German, and Russian suggestions of extended time for inspections, from 30 days to 90 days. That would be an additional 7,000 to 21,000 dead, far worse than the current civilain death toll from the war, yes the same one they splash on TV every night and cry about.

I found it very interesting that living under Saddam was far more deadly than being engaged in war with such a superior military opponent.

 

[Glitchny]

good point, makes sense as well but i somehow think that some people wont beleive you

 

[Piano Man]

I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

 

[Piano Man]

I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

 

[Piano Man]

I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

You mean you never agreed with UN, not US sanctions on Iraq.... The UN imposed the sanctions, not the US.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Good thing the sanctions imposed by the UN will be lifted.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Good thing the sanctions imposed by the UN will be lifted.

Yes, and it only took the US 30 days to disarm Iraq...

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

You mean you never agreed with UN, not US sanctions on Iraq.... The UN imposed the sanctions, not the US.

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

 

[ub4me]

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

I totally agree.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: drewshin

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

Don't they both have veto power?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I agree with everything you said, but that's why I have never agreed with US sanctions on Iraq.

You mean you never agreed with UN, not US sanctions on Iraq.... The UN imposed the sanctions, not the US.

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

How come you liberals, Anti-War, and/or Bush haters always get to decide when issues get to be looked at in black & white? If things about Iraq are so "one side of the street or the other"....which side are you on .... "with us, or against us"-GWB And remember if you play in the street you are going to get run over

CkG

 

[Tates]

Looking at the opulance of Saddam's palaces, built during the sanctions, it is hard to believe that Iraqi deaths were directly attributable to the sanctions. There should have been enough money to provide for the well being of the Iraqi people if a lot of the money hadn't been converted into Saddam's ill gotten gain.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: drewshin

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

And so what would have been the punishments for Saddam for not complying with the 1991 cease fire agreement? A slap on the wrist?

 

[drewshin]

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

How come you liberals, Anti-War, and/or Bush haters always get to decide when issues get to be looked at in black & white? If things about Iraq are so "one side of the street or the other"....which side are you on .... "with us, or against us"-GWB And remember if you play in the street you are going to get run over

CkG

heh heh, i guess im busy running across the street, but i alwasy look both ways when im crossing. no, im not a liberal, i guess i just hate everyone who tries impose themselves on us, left and right. im not anti-war either, im just anti-this-war.

 

[Corn]

Don't they both have veto power?

Kinda takes the wind out of the "if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all" argument doesn't it?

France/Russia had "their way" and decided to impose sanctions against Iraq. Evidently it was more profitable for them to deal with Iraq on the black market knowing a significant portion of the competition would be absent from that market.

I'm sure that Russia thought that sanctions against Iraq were terrible, however it appears that they believed that Iraq needed GPS jammers and night vision goggles more than the Iraqi people needed food and medicine.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: drewshin

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

How come you liberals, Anti-War, and/or Bush haters always get to decide when issues get to be looked at in black & white? If things about Iraq are so "one side of the street or the other"....which side are you on .... "with us, or against us"-GWB And remember if you play in the street you are going to get run over

CkG

heh heh, i guess im busy running across the street, but i alwasy look both ways when im crossing. no, im not a liberal, i guess i just hate everyone who tries impose themselves on us, left and right. im not anti-war either, im just anti-this-war.

Just like the US is anti-UN-this-war

game-set-match

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Corn

Don't they both have veto power?

Kinda takes the wind out of the "if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all" argument doesn't it?

France/Russia had "their way" and decided to impose sanctions against Iraq. Evidently it was more profitable for them to deal with Iraq on the black market knowing a significant portion of the competition would be absent from that market.

I'm sure that Russia thought that sanctions against Iraq were terrible, however it appears that they believed that Iraq needed GPS jammers and night vision goggles more than the Iraqi people needed food and medicine.

The only reason the sanctions were still in place is because US/UK wouldn't lift them. Russia might have voted or not vetoed the sanctions because that happened as USSR was disintegrating, and Yeltzin wanted to be friends with the west. Of course by now they have learned that no good deed goes unpunished. US and UK have hijacked these sanctions from their original purpose of keeping them in place until inspections were done, to keeping them in place until Saddam was removed.
This notion that we are invading Iraq to save them from the sanctions that we ourselves supported is absurd. Especially since we are ignoring the UNSC to supposedly enforce UNSC sanctions.

 

[Corn]

Russia might have voted or not vetoed the sanctions because that happened as USSR was disintegrating, and Yeltzin wanted to be friends with the west.

Well, that's such a convincing argument isn't it? Russia acted in our interests simply because we were becoming fast friends.........LOL. You tell an interesting fairy tale Tool.

US and UK have hijacked these sanctions from their original purpose of keeping them in place until inspections were done, to keeping them in place until Saddam was removed.

When were the sanctions "done"?..........and for a moment let's assume that the US/UK didn't "hijack" the purpose of the sanctions, would it have changed the duration as of last week?

This notion that we are invading Iraq to save them from the sanctions that we ourselves supported is absurd.

Of course it's absurd, because it's your dishonest misrepresentation of the facts that makes it absurd. We are not "saving" anyone from sanctions, we are saving them from Saddam. The sanctions allowed for humanitarian aide that Saddam decided not to disburse to his people.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Estimates vary of the real death toll from the 12 years of sanctions, but nearly everyone agress well over 1 million have perished. I will use 1 million but bear in mind there are reports of up to 1.5 million, so this % could even be dramatically larger.

In 12 years 1 million Iraqi's have died due to sanctions, about 7,000 a month at that rate.

In 3 weeks of war there have been @ 750-1000 civilian deaths ( some military dressed as civilian, some killed by Saddam's forces, nothing new there). Let's assume there will be @ 1200 by the time the war reaches it's one month mark.

That clearly shows you are at least 5 times more likely to die as a result of the sanctions than the war itself.

Now let's explore the French, German, and Russian suggestions of extended time for inspections, from 30 days to 90 days. That would be an additional 7,000 to 21,000 dead, far worse than the current civilain death toll from the war, yes the same one they splash on TV every night and cry about.

I found it very interesting that living under Saddam was far more deadly than being engaged in war with such a superior military opponent.

Yea, but Saddam isn't worth going to war over, nor are the Iraqi people

Its obvious he was spending money on rebuilding his military, as well as expanding it... instead serving the needs of his people. They are starving and dying because of him, not the sanctions.

 

[flavio]

"In maintaining the sanctions, the United States is violating fundamental tenets of established and customary international law. The Geneva Conventions, for example, prohibit the "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare," as well as the attack, destruction, removal or rendering useless of "objects indispensable" to agricultural production and irrigation works "for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

Tellingly, the United States has refused to entertain the idea of divorcing military or more targeted sanctions from those now broadly levied against Iraq. The rationale is presumably identical to that presently driving U.S. sanctions policy in Yugoslavia with only the target differing: "A cold and hungry population is more likely to try to overthrow Mr. Milosevic," writes Steven Erlanger in the New York Times."


Text

 

[Tates]

Don't forget the millions he has paid to the families of suicide bombers at $25,000 a pop.

 

[flavio]

"For almost 10 years, the people of Iraq have been subject to the most severe international sanctions in history. While specific statistics vary, all sources confirm that sanctions have resulted in a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions."

Text

 

[Tates]

Why is it the fault of the US that UN mandated sanctions were in place?

Why is it so chic to blame the US for everything?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tates
Why is it the fault of the US that UN mandated sanctions were in place?

Why is it so chic to blame the US for everything?

Dont worry, if we would have done nothing, the world would have complained.