Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Iraqi children sentenced to death!

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima.... Is the price worth it? "

Madeleine Albright: "...we think the price is worth it."

- 60 Minutes, May 12, 1996
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Listen Abu, if youre gonna post out of context quotes like that then you could at least add your own comments to the thread so we know what you think. Its a much better way to start posting here.

    I happen to agree with you on the murder of Iraqi kids...Im disgusted at the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am sickened by the way the whole world seems to totally ignore this issue.

    While international citizens and expert delegations continue to travel to Iraq and bring back reports of the awful and catastrophic effects of a sanctions-suffocated economy superimposed on a bomb-devastated infrastructure and an environment poisoned by depleted uranium (DU: lifespan of 4.5 billion years). Their reports are largely ignored by the media.

    Please remember, Iraq is made up of 22 million men, women and children, and not one person called Saddam Husein.
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>I happen to agree with you on the murder of Iraqi kids...</STRONG>

    Bald, you seem to have decided yourself as to what I think? <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    And I'm sorry but I don't think the issue is of context.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>Bald, you seem to have decided yourself as to what I think? <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    And I'm sorry but I don't think the issue is of context.</STRONG>

    Its a pretty clear cut case of mass murder IMO. Its also utterly pointless, we put these sanctions on Iraq as a whole and then we do that oil for aid thing which benefits those in charge but none of which gets to the people who need the aid.

    Unfortunately it seems as though the west is determined to screw over Iraq as much as humanly possible. Lets just hope that someone can change the Americans mind about invading Iraq next year.

    It was pretty clear what you thought but it would have been nicer to hear some comments from you <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The sanctions disgust me and the apathy towards the policy that our elected govt supports also disgusts me......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>
    Lets just hope that someone can change the Americans mind about invading Iraq next year.
    </STRONG>

    Colin Powell wussed out before the job was completed. I have no more respect for Powell than for the chicken-shit politicians that betrayed US in Vn.

    Depose Hussein - and not replace him with one of his sycophants - and you will have altered the course of what must come.

    Iraqi's love of the tyrrant? Is the price of admission. They do not want to deal with it? US will.

    Tell me again about the Republican Guard, and what fierce fighters they are. The most popular souvenir of the Gulf War? Never fired, once dropped AK-47's. Hundreds of Iraqi's surrendering to female truck drivers... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Got an employment opportunity for you, Abumondir. You can get your application in now for towel boy at the soon to be built, glass bottomed resevoir at Lake Bagdad water skiing resort. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    You do not want to deal with Hussein, we will ~ and this time we won't play as nice as we did a decade ago.

    Yeah, US is the "bully" on the block: more apropos would be "playground monitor", the adult that keeps the kidlets in check. Only reason there has not been an all-encompassing world war in the last half century has been US presence around the world, because we are tired of getting drawn into these wars to bail out the UK. US is tired of all these little pissing contests that escalate into HUGE wars.

    You want to kick the "playground monitor" in the shins to demonstrate how tough you are? Get ready for a real demonstration of "corporal punishment"... You can be the example that encourages everyone else to finally play nice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sanctions were supposedly put in place to force Saddam out of power. That has not happened and is not likely to happen any time soon.

    The people of Iraq suffer from those sanctions, not the ruling family. Saddam Hussein -- for years a darling of American and Western governments -- is a problem for the Iraqi people themselves.

    In Iraq, the average monthly salary of a mid-level government employee is 4,000 Iraqi dinars, or US$3.30. The education system is at the edge of ruin. There are not enough books or supplies.The national health service, once splendid, now exists only on paper.

    Thanatos, I do not think you will try and justify what the US army did in the 1991. During the Gulf War up to 800 tons of munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) were used by United States forces in military actions in Kuwait and Iraq.

    DU vaporizes when deployed in armour-piercing bullets, and scientific studies indicate if as much as one small particle (<5 microns in diameter) enters the lungs, the lungs and surrounding tissue will be exposed to 270 times the radiation permitted for workers in the radiation industry.

    America is not hated because it practices democracy, values freedom, or respects human rights. It is hated because it denies these things to people in Third World countries.

    The American people ought to know that it is not them, but their government's policies, that are so hated.

    And I do not believe that any person worthy of being called human would try and justify the use of DU.

    Sadly, I'm begining to see truth in what Einstein said:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who is the leader of Iraq again?

    Surely it is <STRONG>his</STRONG> responsibilty to do what he can to ensure the well being of his people...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>Who is the leader of Iraq again?

    Surely it is [qb]his</STRONG> responsibilty to do what he can to ensure the well being of his people...[/QB]

    Iraq is not a democracy, Saddam is a dictator who killed his own relatives to stay in power.

    And when he used biological & chemical weapons against his own people in 1988, the West did not say a word. Why? Because at the time he was at war with Imam Khomeini of Iran, whose democratic ways were viewed as a bigger threat to the West than Saddam.

    Halabja 1988
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thanatos, I do not think you will try and justify what the US army did in the 1991.
    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Abumondir: quite frankly, I don't give a damn that "half a million children have died as a result of sanctions" because that's bullshit. They didn't die as a result of sanctions; they died as the result of living in a bassackwards country ruled by a despot who spends his money on mansions and WMD research instead of food and hospitals. And furthermore, I didn't hear you complaining a month or two back when Saddam unilaterally quit exporting oil to protest the "Israeli occupation." He's got more blood on his hands than any of the Western countries in this matter. And lastly - quit going on about the horrors of depleted uranium. I don't believe its nearly so bad as its made out to be (it was recently ruled out as a cause of "Gulf War Syndrome") and the people of Iraq have a lot more to worry about than the slight possibility of radiation poisoning at this time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't give a damn that "half a million children have died as a result of sanctions" because that's bullshit.
    The list of sanctions includes a variety of essential medical items and things such as babyfood, why is that?

    Obviously Saddam is scum but the sanctions have only made things worse for the people of Iraq not for him, so what is the point?

    SMART sanctions were I believe rejected......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    <STRONG>

    Colin Powell wussed out before the job was completed. I have no more respect for Powell than for the chicken-shit politicians that betrayed US in Vn.

    US is tired of all these little pissing contests that escalate into HUGE wars.

    You want to kick the "playground monitor" in the shins to demonstrate how tough you are? Get ready for a real demonstration of "corporal punishment"... You can be the example that encourages everyone else to finally play nice.</STRONG>


    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    The reason why we didn't finish Hussein in 1991 has nothing to do with politicians "betraying" the US, it has everything to do with not creating a pissing contest that turns into a huge war.

    The political leaders were worried about how effectively a democratic government would be able to handle the rebellion that was sure to occur by the Kurds in the north if Hussein was deposed. There were also concerns about whether or not Iran would try to grab territory with a weaker leader or leaders in power. Keeping Hussein in meant keeping political stability.

    The fear was that the US would have to keep troops in Iraq for years to stabilize the situation. Peacekeeping could have cost the US perhaps hundreds of American lives.

    However, I agree with you about the consequences of Iraq's actions. I can't believe the lessons haven't been learned, if you fuck with the US, we will get you back.

    It's a shame that those people are suffering. But what else is the US supposed to do? Admittedly the embargo hasn't had the direct effects that the US hoped for (ie. a coup d'etat), but it does at least create the kind of dissent that will help end his regime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the kind of dissent that will help end his regime.
    there is an argument that says sanctions defelect attention away from Saddams wrong doing by showing the US to be the enemy, its easy for Saddam to show the misery of the people to be caused by US sanctions.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>The list of sanctions includes a variety of essential medical items and things such as babyfood, why is that?

    Obviously Saddam is scum but the sanctions have only made things worse for the people of Iraq not for him, so what is the point?

    SMART sanctions were I believe rejected......</STRONG>

    The sanctions as implemented are ridiculous. You can't use baby formula to build rockets, for God sakes.

    Of course, much less thought goes into the actual implementation than the decision to impose them. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    I say sell them all the food that they need. Of course, it won't help get Hussein out of power, but at least we won't have children dying. As for anything else other than basic human needs, too bad.

    [ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: Alessandro ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>there is an argument that says sanctions defelect attention away from Saddams wrong doing by showing the US to be the enemy, its easy for Saddam to show the misery of the people to be caused by US sanctions.......</STRONG>

    Well, what can you do? The people will eventually figure it out for themselves or will begin to resent Hussein's government for not changing the situation. Either way will satisfy the US's goal for the policy.

    I think that it could work out similar to the Stauffenberg bomb plot against Hitler. Both leaders are autocratic dictators, loved by the common people, but the educated real patriots can see what kind of damage the leader is doing to the country and try to do something about it. Hitler got very lucky, who's to say that one of Saddam's men couldn't do the same but actually get him?

    [ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: Alessandro ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody has died due to the sanctions imposed by the West. They have died due to the fact that they live in a backwards, third world shit hole ruled by a Twat.

    Get rid of the Twat, drop all your backwards religious bollox, adopt democracy and you might start to see the fruits of your efforts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Get rid of the Twat, drop all your backwards religious bollox, adopt democracy and you might start to see the fruits of your efforts.
    Its that easy is it?And how may I ask would you do that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>Its that easy is it?And how may I ask would you do that?</STRONG>


    Don't you know, you just wave a magic wand, and pooff Saddam's gone and everything's great!
    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Obviously Saddam is scum but the sanctions have only made things worse for the people of Iraq not for him, so what is the point?

    Exactly, which is why the US should have invaded Bagdhad and killed the bastard in '91. Of course, now that the US is contemplating a return to Iraq, "world opinion" (ie the US's 'good friend' Europe and the tinpot dictators of the world) is completely opposed to the idea. Mind you, getting rid of Saddam will not solve Iraq's problems, but it will be the beginning of the end. It's on historical record that massive military devastation by the US will help the people of these countries out more than any amount of bitching from Amnesty International or financial aid packages - see Japan, Germany, and the latest entry, Afghanistan. And before someone brings up Vietnam (because somebody will), I think Thanatos can tell you plenty about that situation and where it went wrong. Whether or not the US should invade Iraq now, I'm not sure. Whether or not it would ultimately be better for Iraq, there's no question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you suggesting that "military devastation" is an inately good thing?

    I would suggest it is the aid packages that follow victory that make things better.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    <STRONG>

    Exactly, which is why the US should have invaded Bagdhad and killed the bastard in '91. Of course, now that the US is contemplating a return to Iraq, "world opinion" (ie the US's 'good friend' Europe and the tinpot dictators of the world) is completely opposed to the idea. Mind you, getting rid of Saddam will not solve Iraq's problems, but it will be the beginning of the end. It's on historical record that massive military devastation by the US will help the people of these countries out more than any amount of bitching from Amnesty International or financial aid packages - see Japan, Germany, and the latest entry, Afghanistan. And before someone brings up Vietnam (because somebody will), I think Thanatos can tell you plenty about that situation and where it went wrong. Whether or not the US should invade Iraq now, I'm not sure. Whether or not it would ultimately be better for Iraq, there's no question.</STRONG>


    Okay, seeing as you have the situation all figured out regarding Iraq after the Gulf War...

    How would you have stopped the country from falling into civil war after Saddam was gone? Saddam rules with an iron fist. These leaders, while reprehensible, at least maintain the status quo. With a necessarily weaker democratic government in power the Kurds would have rebelled and oh yeah, there's that little country to the north...what's it called again? IRAN.

    Who the Iraqis have already fought one war with. Who have a big army. Who hate the Iraqis. Who wouldn't hesitate to start something again if they thought they could get something out of it.

    This wasn't an easy decision. No one in the US wanted to have to keep US soldiers in Iraq as peacekeepers, getting possibly hundreds killed.

    [ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: Alessandro ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    <STRONG>Abumondir: quite frankly, I don't give a damn that "half a million children have died as a result of sanctions" because that's bullshit. </STRONG>

    So what do you give a damn about then? The Dallas Cowboys not winning the Superbowl? <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    <STRONG> They didn't die as a result of sanctions; they died as the result of living in a bassackwards country ruled by a despot who spends his money on mansions and WMD research instead of food and hospitals.</STRONG>

    The report of the UN secretary-general Kofi Anan, in October 2001, says the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

    Denis Halliday, the UN coordinator for humanitarian relief in Iraq, quit in protest over the US and UK policies.

    The report also says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory.
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    <STRONG> And furthermore, I didn't hear you complaining a month or two back when Saddam unilaterally quit exporting oil to protest the "Israeli occupation." </STRONG>

    why should I ? Should I also complain the US stoppping exports to Cuba? <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    <STRONG> He's got more blood on his hands than any of the Western countries in this matter. QB]

    Agree
    Originally posted by j0nn0:
    [QB] And lastly - quit going on about the horrors of depleted uranium. I don't believe its nearly so bad as its made out to be (it was recently ruled out as a cause of "Gulf War Syndrome") and the people of Iraq have a lot more to worry about than the slight possibility of radiation poisoning at this time.</STRONG>

    Since 1990, the incident rate of leukemia in Iraq has grown by more than 600 percent. Studies in Iraq indicate that more than forty percent of the population around Basra will get cancer. Thousands of US Gulf War veterans suffer from internal uranium contamination up to 5,000 times that permissible. <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Would you be comfortable having DU all over you backyard?
    <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, seeing as you have the situation all figured out regarding Iraq after the Gulf War...

    I said that where? I said we should have killed the bastard. I didn't come up with a plan to build a nation.
    How would you have stopped the country from falling into civil war after Saddam was gone? Saddam rules with an iron fist. These leaders, while reprehensible, at least maintain the status quo. With a necessarily weaker democratic government in power the Kurds would have rebelled and oh yeah, there's that little country to the north...what's it called again? IRAN.

    The thing is, there are Iraqi rebels - its called the Iraqi National Congress (I think that's the name - Balddog, fact check me <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. They could have been supported by the US. And the US might have made an alliance with Iraq, in which case Iran wouldn't dare screw with them. But these are all 'what if' situations, neither you nor I can say what might have happened. I just think that if America was willing to start a war down there - for both national interest and altruistic reasons - they should have done a proper job of it the first time around.
    This wasn't an easy decision. No one in the US wanted to have to keep US soldiers in Iraq as peacekeepers, getting possibly hundreds killed.

    Fair enough. I just think that the US made the wrong decision by not taking Saddam out when we had the chance. Because all the US did was make him a mortal enemy AND leave him in power. Bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hello guys.

    The post that started this forum was posted in 1996. Since then, which is 6 years ago!!!, lots have changed. Many sanctions, especially medical supplies et al. are lifted, and only those which could be converted in to weaponry are inspected. Please don't start an argument based on past facts, when the situation has changed a lot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what do you give a damn about then? The Dallas Cowboys not winning the Superbowl?

    Cheap shot buddy.
    The report of the UN secretary-general Kofi Anan, in October 2001, says the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
    Denis Halliday, the UN coordinator for humanitarian relief in Iraq, quit in protest over the US and UK policies.

    The report also says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory.

    Oh, well if KOFFI ANNAN said it...why didn't you say so before?
    I have a deep distrust of all "one world, one government" solutions - the UN included. I don't trust much of anything that comes out of their mouths.

    why should I ? Should I also complain the US stoppping exports to Cuba?

    You should have protested because when the US and the UK sanction Iraq, you say it kills children. So when Saddam does the same thing...you're telling me sanctions only kill children in Iraq when implemented by Western countries?

    Since 1990, the incident rate of leukemia in Iraq has grown by more than 600 percent. Studies in Iraq indicate that more than forty percent of the population around Basra will get cancer. Thousands of US Gulf War veterans suffer from internal uranium contamination up to 5,000 times that permissible.

    Suffer from uranium contamination huh?
    And just how do they suffer? Just because they have been exposed to uranium does not sentence them to death instantly. A caveat - I don't rule out the possibility that DU may cause some health problems. I do believe that the risk is much overestimated. Thanatos, you've been in the military for quite some time. Have you worked with DU much? Do you suffer from uranium contamination? <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    Would you be comfortable having DU all over you backyard?

    Haha. I wouldn't give a damn because I don't think any definitive proof between DU and sickness exists. I haven't ruled it out, but I definitely think it is way overblown. What would your solution be? Quit using DU weapons? Until they come up with a better alternative (and better has to include performance, not just safety), I'll accept that nations will use these weapons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DU gives off radiation. Radiation causes cancer, mutations, many other related sicknesses. He's right, who ever lives in an area littered with this shit will be much more likely to get cancer.

    It's a pretty shitty way to go. Yeah, just being exposed doesn't mean you're dead, but living in a radioactive area means you've got a pretty good shot at it.

    Thanatos was in Vietnam. They didn't start using DU until much later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pardon me for asking, but since when did newbies start in the Politics forum?

    All credit to you, for starting in this, the best of all forums, for intelligent debate and discourse.

    Right.

    Depleted Uranium weapons are lethal. That's what they're designed for. There is no point having safe weapons; it's like having blunt knives!!

    Iraq is a major player, and the dictatorship of Hussein is a considerable influence on the recessive nature of Iraqi standards of living and economic development. However, his influence is continual, and stabilising in a notoriously unstable region. I admit that he is not the ideal choice of leader, but at least you know where you stand; he hates everyone!

    US interference with legitimate state process is illegal. The last attempts, either those rumoured to have taken place with Castro, or those taken to help supplant the Shah in Iran (oh, who was that?) have been unsuccessful. Let's not think upon that too much.

    Hussein has an easy option; allow the weapons inspectors free access. Unless he is hiding chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    In which case, give him 60 days to destroy them. Send in the special forces to secure and shut off well heads, nuke the entire country in to a parking lot, and send in the Marines to paint the lines. [j/k]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DJP:
    <STRONG> US interference with legitimate state process is illegal. The last attempts, either those rumoured to have taken place with Castro, or those taken to help supplant the Shah in Iran (oh, who was that?) have been unsuccessful. [j/k]</STRONG>

    Totally agree. And may I add the recent failed coup to overthrow Chavez of Venezuela.

    I think the US (the only country in the world that has to have all its embassies built like fortresses) should do itself and the rest of the world a favour and stop sticking its nose in everyones business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Abu, depleted uranium is not something you put into the round...it is what the round is made out of. Being heavier than lead and harder than steel it cuts thrugh a tank like butter...Our A-10 Warthogs were famouse for killing tanks on behalf of the Republican Guard. We stand ready to go back and do it again...but this time we intend to finish the job.

    As for all the poor pitiful starving children...take that to the glorious leader of Iraq and make him deal with it...in any case we, US, are planning Lake Bagdad as a future destination resort site with water skiing on a glass bottomed lake that glows in the dark.

    Folks here are fed up with the islamic terror threats and the way things are going it won't take much of an incident to get the whole lot packed up and sent back to their turdworld shithole countries...as for democracies...we don't give a fart in a windstorm how islamics rule themselves...if they want to do business and sell us oil and stuff fine...if not let them eat it and do without our wheat and other produce/products!

    Am I down on islam over what is going on here in US? You bet I am. All the pc krapola is starting to get flushed out of the American lexicon!

    <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Abumondir:
    <STRONG>
    I think the US (the only country in the world that has to have all its embassies built like fortresses) should do itself and the rest of the world a favour and stop sticking its nose in everyones business.</STRONG>

    Do you really mean that?

    Would you rather have a totally distanced USA that didnt interfere with other nations in any way at all, including aid and support that you view as helpful?
Sign In or Register to comment.