[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
Anyway, Bush's speech says it all
[/QUOTE]
Hardly. Where does Bush talk about the 1.6 million Iraqi children that have died as a result of the sanctions, something which Madelaine Albright said "was a price well worth paying"?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Hardly. Where does Bush talk about the 1.6 million Iraqi children that have died as a result of the sanctions, something which Madelaine Albright said "was a price well worth paying"?
[/QUOTE]
Read again, yes he did:
**In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. **
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
Read again, yes he did
[/quote]
Not quite. This thread is about 1.6 million Iraqi children that have died as a result of UN sanctions according not just to Saddam, but numerous international sources, including UN staff. Now where has Bush mentioned this fact, which your very own Madelaine Albright once dismissed as a "price well worth paying"?
What Bush said is that the 1.6 million Iraqi children that have died are the responsiblity of Saddam because of his continual defiance of 18 U.N Resolutions
**
UTD, Sorry for the delay in responding. i could have responded yesterday, but out of disillusionment i did not, really do not see this discussion going anywhere except down the traditional route of casting blame towards each other. i know regardless of whichever references i utilize and provide, even if they are from the United Nations (as i have done in this thread - see reference above of Marc Bossuyt’s from the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights), i will always receive a response in which there is rarely a distinction made between the consequences of the sanctions, versus one dictator.
Regarding “too few supplies” ordered - you must have heard of Tun Myat, the current administrator of the ‘oil-for-food’ programme in Baghdad. Let’s see what he had to say regarding the low level of supplies ordered.
"Over the past few days Myat got to the bottom of Iraq’s recent slow pace in ordering supplies for health, education, water, sanitation and oil equipment.
“The real reason is nothing sinister,” he said. It all boils down to a new Iraqi law from last October which eliminates the role of middlemen in supplying contracts to those sectors.
“Many ministries here took time to readjust their purchasing procedures, sources of supplies and identification of suppliers,” Myat said. "And this is probably the main reason why some of the ministries have fallen very badly behind. The progress Iraq has made under sanctions owes much to the wherewithal of its people, Myat, a native of Myanmar, said. (Source).
~ ~ ~
This article was also published on the MSNBC website, dated 30 January 2001, under the title “Iraqi oil-for-food no substitute for sanctions end”.
For the benefit of any doubters out there, i’ll give you another reference. How about a UN Security Council report? (Click here, then scroll down to the report dated 8 April 1999). Pay close attention to what it states regarding the following - any improvements that the government of Iraq could make within the ‘oil-for-food’ programme and what influences those improvements would make over the entire sanctions system:
“But even if all humanitarian supplies were provided in a timely manner, the humanitarian programme implemented pursuant to resolution 986 (1995) can admittedly only meet but a small fraction of the priority needs of the Iraqi people. Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about in the implementation of the current humanitarian programme - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of the parameters set forth in resolution 986 (1995) and succeeding resolutions, in particular resolution 1153 (1998). Nor was the ‘oil-for-food’] programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people.”
Bush is a bigger fool than i previously believed if he actually subscribes to the above belief.
Add one more fool to the count then! While the results are tragic, as your link shows, I fail to see how the ramifications of Saddam not living up to his commitments to the international community are somehow the fault of US administrations, past or present.
I fully agree that one or two less palaces and a lot fewer missles would have gone a long way towards eleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people.
Saddam had choices. Obviously, his own personal image and legacy were and are much more important to him then the well being of his people.
Peace To All Who Read This…
Nadia,
Many would argue that it is foolish to put the blame on the US and/or the UN for Saddam not following through with the promises he made when defeated in war and the ensuing 18 UN Resolutions he violated.
Semi,
The Vast majority of the world would argue that there is currently no justification for war, Iraq has not threatened any of its neighbours, so far NO WMD has been found and even if it had been, it would have to be destroyed under UN auspices without the need for millitary force. Accusations that Iraq has links to millitant groups are also unproven and have been ridiculed by the experts. Millions of people from every corner of the world, every background, creed, religion and ideology strongly oppose this war, they know the real reasons behind the war is and will always be OIL.
Mr Pockets,
>>While the results are tragic, as your link shows, I fail to see how the ramifications of Saddam not living up to his commitments to the international community are somehow the fault of US administrations, past or present.<<
Somehow you see that connection, but fail to realize it is no more the fault of US administrations than it is the fault of Iraqi civilians.
>>I fully agree that one or two less palaces and a lot fewer missles would have gone a long way towards eleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people.<<
Then you obviously have read very few United Nations, Food and Agriculture, World Health Organization, and Red Cross reports.
>>Obviously, his own personal image and legacy were and are much more important to him then the well being of his people.<<
And for that, we must kill Iraqi civilians each day.
i am truly amazed at the brilliant display of logic here. i wonder whether you were this enthralled with demonizing Hussein when he was busy gassing 5000 Kurds - amidst a backdrop of silence from Western governments.
Seminole my dear, is it not more foolish to embark upon a policy for greater than one decade that kills civilians - and all for what? Because one dictator is apparently not doing what we want him to? If the purpose of the present policy vis-a-vis Iraq is to kill everyone in the country except Saddam Hussein, then i would say it is working wonderfully :k: If the intended policy is to sow more hatred in the hearts of even ‘moderates’ and ‘liberal-minded’ individuals like myself against the US government, then the policy is working wonders.
If the intended policy was to convince the Iraqi people that the US was not their enemy and was truly concerned for the future of their country, then perhaps the 1.5 million+ graves that have been dug up to bury Iraqi civilians has seen to it that the policy has been a disaster for the future. i fear it will make your country less, not more, safer.
Iraq’s young pay the price…
Of some countries obsession with a regime they once aided and actively helped wage war against others. For nearly 13 years the Iraqi people, and especially millions of Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions. A price that the former US Secretary of State, Madelaine Albright said was “well worth paying”.
This is a news item on a heart rending report just aired on Sky News…
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-12255662,00.html
SILENT WAR’S WASTED LIVES
Few places provide more powerful testament to Iraq’s tragic past than Baratha, the children’s graveyard in north Baghdad, Sky News correspondent Michelle Clifford reports from Baghdad. Beneath the olive trees stand row upon row of tiny headstones etched with the fleeting details of the thousands who have been laid to rest here. Officially, the graveyard is full but today - as every day - more families come to bury their young dead. Fawzia Ali enters Baratha, carrying a tiny muslin bundle. It contains the body of her grandson. Born prematurely, he survived a little over a week. His mother is too sick to bring him; his father is away, serving in the army. A grave, little more than a foot long, has been dug in the space between two headstones and as the child’s body is laid in the earth his grandmother kneels and cries.
She tells us she sat with him for three days and nights without sleep, holding him to her chest, willing him to live. “It isn’t fair,” she says. “If he had been born somewhere else, where there was medicine, he would have survived.” She is probably right. Yards away, a father watches as his second child is buried. The first was interred the previous day. His wife went into labour early with twins and the local hospital did not have the equipment to keep them alive.
The father knows, like so many parents who make the painful journey here, that his babies might have lived had Iraq not been crippled by economic sanctions. Many children die from illnesses that would be treatable in countries with adequate healthcare. One in eight Iraqi children dies before the age of five - one of the worst survival rates in the world. A third are malnourished and a quarter do not have access to clean water.
Mohammad Abdul Jabar, 62, has worked at the cemetery since he was a small boy. He has lost count of the number of children he has buried but says the years since the Gulf War have been the busiest.“It is not an easy job,” he says. “It is hard to deal with the little ones even after all these years.” Many of Baghdad’s poorest haven’t even enough money to pay the burial fees at Baratha but Mohammad takes the bodies anyway, laying them in the ground with care, if little ceremony. “What else can I do?” he asks. Like all the gravediggers here he worries that if there is another war he will be burying many more children in the weeks and months to come.
Yes, this is a heart-wrenching story. There has way too much civilian suffering in Iraq these past 12 years. Let's hope that Saddam will have a change of heart soon so the sanctions can be dropped and aid begin to flow.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
... The targeted Government, especially if it has a strong grip on the media, will push its citizens to unite behind it in defiance of the foreign States.
...
[/QUOTE]
Do I read here the Bush govt., its strong grip on the media, the Patriot Act I (and now II) to bring in line citizens, its defiance of states not in agreement about pre-emptive war on Iraq?
I don't think the White House has a strong grip on the media. Nor has the Patriot Act brought too many "in-line" with the White House. Iraq on the other hand has a state run media and perversely uses the suffering of the Iraqi people that Saddam has created against the U.S. and it's allies.
Along with Saddam, we must d*mn the Leftists, Chomsky, the UN Security Council and all others who were faint of heart and argued for and opted for sanctions 12 years ago instead of regime change.
The Iraqi children have paid much too high a price for that error 12 years ago. We owe it to them to correct things and do now what we should have done then. Continuation of the sanctions regime in conjunction with weapons inspections of unknown duration is a cruel, cruel option and will cause more deaths and misery among the Iraqi children. I guess France is the new Madeline Halfbright and thinks that it is worth the price. 
Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi rajioon.
Another aspect to this is that, prior to the ‘Gulf War’, Iraq was awarded a UNESCO prize for having raised its literacy levels to 80% (this was around 1987, i believe). Such was the emphasis upon education that parents in Iraq could actually be jailed for not sending their children to school. Malnutrition and mortality rates were declining prior to sanctions, according to UNICEF.
As Tacitus would have stated, They made a desert and called it peace. Such is the state of our civilized world today - that little children must pay the ultimate “price” for the hypocrisies and arrogance of powerful nations.
Nadia, If continuied excuses for Saddam without alternative solutions to end this stalemate is all that Saddam apologists can come up with, than moderates and liberal-minded people like myself have less and less respect and tolerance for those who are shedding tears for the "poor suffering Iraqi people".
When Saddam apologists blame only the US and never Saddam for any of the suffering of the Iraqi people, their arguments are falling on deaf ears.
When Saddam apologists cannot admit-
1. Iraq has failed to comply with 18 UN Resolutions
2. Iraq is continuing the "Arabization" of non-Arab lands by forced displacement of Kurds and others;
3. Iraq continues to murder, torture and otherwise make disappear citizens that don't agree with the dictator;
4. Iraq has failed to disclose the destruction of banned WMD (that Hussein admitted to after 4 years of lying to the UN).
5. Hussein is re-directing food and money that should be going to the starving people to other places -
then even American moderates like myself have come to the conclusion that there is no way out of this quagmire outside of the forced displacement of Hussein to save the starving Iraqi people.
Seminole: Very eloquently stated. I might add that those of us who are more libertarian in their views would concur with you. Depending upon what issue is being discussed, we might be considered moderate, left or right.
Now you two explain this to me:
There is an oil embargo on Iraqi oil. Yet the only way for Iraq to get food is through the oil for food problem. Isnt that an oxymoron?
The American govt cribs about Iraq wasting money on WMD and not on its people, then why give the iraqi govt money through the oil for food program?