Report: Death, Disease Await Iraqi Children

Up to 1.7 Million Iraqi children have already died from the effects of the last war and the draconian sanctions regime imposed on Iraq. And now the Iraqi people face an unwarranted attack against their sovereignty, hundreds of thousands of children will face a similar fate with widespread malnutrition, lack of medical supplies and equipment and lack of clean water and electricity, leading to almost certain death.. :disgust:

Report: Death, Disease Await Iraqi Kids](Latest news from around the world | The Guardian) Guardian 26 Jan 03

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - **Death, disease and starvation await Iraq’s children should war break out, and casualties in the thousands or even in the hundreds of thousands cannot be ruled out, according to a report released Sunday by an independent team of European and American experts.

The team forecasts a grave humanitarian disaster'' in its report prepared by 10 experts from the International Study Team, an independent group of academics, researchers, physicians and child psychologists founded in 1991 to examine the effect of military conflicts on civilians.** The report, titled The Impact of a New War on Iraqi Children,‘’ expressed concern not only about casualties among children as a direct result of combat, but more importantly as a result of the results of war - including disruptions of food supplies, lack of medicines, the flight of refugees.

Some 500,000 children already malnourished or underweight, and Iraq currently only has a month’s supply of food and three months’ supply of medicines. If a war - especially a lengthy one - cuts off supplies or damages Iraq’s already decrepit medical infrastructure, then children would see the most suffering, said the report.

``While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries … casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands,‘’ team leader Eric Hoskins said. The report’s findings, read out at a news conference, were based on data collected in three Iraqi cities - Baghdad, Basra and Karbala - and interviews with 200 families. The team did not receive any help from the Iraqi government and hired its own interpreters, said Hoskins, a Canadian.

The United States and Britain are assembling the biggest ground, air and naval force in the Persian Gulf region since the 1991 Gulf War, threatening war against Iraq to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction. On Monday, the chief arms inspectors are to deliver to the U.N. Security Council a crucial report on the progress of two months of searching for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Iraq's 13 million children are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma,'' Hoskins told reporters, summing up the findings of the survey, conducted Jan. 20-26. Iraqi children are more vulnerable than ever,‘’ he said. Iraq’s under-18 population was worse off than on the eve of the 1991 war, when a U.S. led coalition drove Iraq’s army out of Kuwait.

Twelve years of economic sanctions, imposed by the United Nations after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, have left Iraq’s economy shattered, although expansion of the oil for food program in recent years have improved conditions somewhat.

Under the oil for food program, Iraq is allowed to sell unlimited amounts of oil to buy humanitarian goods and pay war reparations. Figures published in September 2000 by the United Nations and the World Food Program said malnutrition among children in Iraq was very serious outside Baghdad and in rural areas, reflecting the effects of drought and poverty.

But it found the nutritional situation in the north significantly improved.'' In the north, the oil-for-food program is implemented by the U.N. Inter-Agency Humanitarian Program on behalf of the government of Iraq, the report said. No one is ready for this war. Not the national government not the United Nations,‘’ said Hoskins, a medical doctor, referring to preparations for any humanitarian crisis that may result from a military conflict.

The report said that interviews with Iraqi children showed they had great fear of a new war. It said researchers were shocked to learn that children as young as four and five had clear concepts of the horrors of war, speaking of the threats posed by bombs, guns, destruction of houses, burning homes, killing of people: and in the end referring to their own families We will all die.''' Iraqi children already are psychologically and mentally exhausted,‘’ said Hoskins, alluding to the U.N. sanctions.

The International Study Team’s backers include World Vision Canada, Oxfam Canada, United Church of Canada and the University of Bergen. Its report on the humanitarian situation in Iraq following the 1991 war was considered the most comprehensive of such reports. It was based on more than 9,000 household interviews in 300 locations across Iraq.

'There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing' ~ Lawrence Eagleburger (former US Secretary of State)

'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty and democracy?' ~ Gandhi

How many dead Iraqis will it take?](How many dead Iraqis will it take?) The Age, Australia 30 Jan 03 (Excerpt)

It seems we are meant to believe that the children of Iraq somehow deserve their fate, writes Carmen Lawrence. So much of the talk by those pressing for an attack on Iraq is stripped bare of the bloody reality of war. It is clinical, anaesthetised and intentionally devoid of emotion. I don’t think I have once heard Prime Minister John Howard talk of the Iraqi lives that would be obliterated, the inevitable legacy of disability, homelessness and the stream of refugees that would result from attacking Iraq.

We are meant to forget that war is about killing and maiming other people, about destroying their homes and communities. We are meant to ignore the fact that they are human at all, with the same hopes and fears as we have. We are invited to deny our shared humanity with the people of Iraq. Failing this, we are asked to consider that they are lesser human beings who somehow deserve their fate or that their death is a reasonable price for us to ask them to pay for our objectives.

When Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, was asked on television what she felt about the fact that more than 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of sanctions, her now notorious reply was that “it was a hard choice” but that, all things considered, “we think the price is worth it”.

Arundati Roy describes this as the “the sophistry and fastidious calculation of Infinite Justice”. Using this calculus, how many dead Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead children to satisfy the Bush administration and its allies that Saddam Hussein has paid a fair price for refusing to fully cooperate with the US weapons inspectors? How much blood for oil?

*When Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, was asked on television what she felt about the fact that more than 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of sanctions, her now notorious reply was that "it was a hard choice" but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". *

To date I believe that woman has never regretted making that statement, unless someone can show otherwise?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Malik73: *
**When Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, was asked on television what she felt about the fact that more than 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of sanctions, her now notorious reply was that "it was a hard choice" but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". *

To date I believe that woman has never regretted making that statement, unless someone can show otherwise?
[/QUOTE]

If such a statement was truly made by her and is not being taken out of context then she truly is a idiot.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

If such a statement was truly made by her and is not being taken out of context then she truly is a idiot.
[/QUOTE]

This statement has been repeated often in the years since she made it, and she has not come forward to deny it, or counter it. So I guess your conclusion of your her is apt.

Malik, you are accurate - she has never apologized for that remark.

UnderTheDome, seeing is believing - http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/albright.avi

CBS’s 60 Minutes report, “Punishing Saddam” (airdate 12 May 1996):
CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq): “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it.”

All the more reason to support a day of peace.

Thanks for that Nadia, I had thought that that woman was caught on tv making those inhuman remarks. I hope most Americans are ashamed that she represented America abroad, and condemn her remarks?

I agree with UTD,if this has not been taken out of context,then i would say she is not only physically ugly she is mentally ugly as well.

However,and i am not condoning what she said but the soundbite does not prove wether it was taken out of context or not and i would be interested in hearing the entire interview,just to hear how she managed to get away with saying those words.If anyone knows where the transcript of that interview can be found,i would like to know.

Since when is that morals or ethics have ever stopped any british or american goverment :disgust:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
If anyone knows where the transcript of that interview can be found,i would like to know.
[/QUOTE]

i'm sorry, i can't find a full transcript of it anywhere on the 'net. If i do, will post it here.

This is NOT directed personally against yourself Braveheart, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and i respect yours. i understand you already stated that you are not condoning the statement; please do not misinterpret my following comments as thought they are against your statement personally.

It just lead me to wonder - in general terms - i am not certain under what context that particular statement would be appropriate. If we remove the fact from our minds that they are Iraqi children, let's just imagine for a moment that they are our own country's children, 500,000 of them - i am not certain whether any context makes it suitable to take the lives of half a million children.

Neither can i understand how it could be appropriate Nadia,which is why i said i would like to hear how she got away with making that statement.I think i am just naturally suspisous whenever i read a sentence that has no ending or beginning,or hear a sentence that has been cut,like the one i heard from that link.

Journalists can be really cunning when trying to make their point from someone elses mouth,if you know what i mean.I can remember a journo that came from the UK to Rhodesia(Zim)to do an article,he was caught in the capital,taking young black children down alleyway,where the shops and resteraunts put their rubbish out and he started throwing money into and around said rubbish and started taking pictures when the kids scrambled for the money.Luckily he was caught,taken to court and sent home with his tail between his legs.Maybe this is where i began to distrust them.

Putting M. Halfbright’s comments in context will not qualify her as a recipient of the Mother Teresa Award. However, the following context does perhaps provide some understanding of the US position regarding sanctions. (I know some of you just aren’t interested in gaining an understanding and love to post the quote for shock value).

US Position as Expressed by Halfbright:
Even though Saddam’s response to sanctions might have directly or indirectly caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, we believe the benefits associated with containment of Saddam coming out of the sanctions regimen exceed the terrible cost in Iraqi lives.

Underlying the sentiment expressed by Halfbright is the belief that the number of lives lost in a world without sanctions and with an unchecked WMD program in Iraq would have been greater. How many more Kurds would Saddam have gassed? How many neighbors would Saddam have threatened and invaded? How many bio or chemical weapons would Saddam have provided to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others to set off in Tel Aviv? In other words, there would not have been less victims, just different victims and perhaps more of them.

With 20/20 hindsight, it is clear that taking out Saddam in the Gulf War would have been preferable to sanctions. So many of you forget that it was France, Russia, China and other UN members and Arab states that opposed the US to taking Bagdad and deposing Saddam. These countries (plus many appeasers like the precious Chomsky) advocated imposition of tough sanctions instead of the alternative.

Today we know that ten years of sanctions have not disarmed Saddam or adequately neutralized the threat he poses and more than a half million Iraqi children that didn’t need to die did, in fact, die. And we are faced with the same three choices we had more than a decade ago:
(1) depose Saddam by force; (2) try to contain Saddam through sanctions; or (3) do nothing and leave Saddam and Iraq alone. Whether you love the US or hate it, number 3 is just not an option that exists in the real world.

Even if I believed that sanctions could eventually accomplish their objective, I don’t think watching another 500,000 Iraqi children die is a price worth paying. I believe military force is far preferable even though some of those who will die will be American soldiers instead of Iraqi children.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Neither can i understand how it could be appropriate Nadia,which is why i said i would like to hear how she got away with making that statement.I think i am just naturally suspisous whenever i read a sentence that has no ending or beginning,or hear a sentence that has been cut,like the one i heard from that link.
[/QUOTE]

BraveHeart, i imagine CBS would have a transcript ordering form accessible on its website, but i realize that's not the best option. At any rate, if i find it off the 'net, i'll post it here.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
I believe military force is far preferable **even though some of those who will die will be American soldiers instead of Iraqi children.
[/QUOTE]
*

Any soldier, belonging to any army of any country, accepts the risks and liabilities when she or he signs up to join the forces. No child is offered the same luxury.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Even if I believed that sanctions could eventually accomplish their objective, I don’t think watching another 500,000 Iraqi children die is a price worth paying. I believe military force is far preferable even though some of those who will die will be American soldiers instead of Iraqi children.
[/QUOTE]
myvoice, you have admitted here that you are against the sanctions regime which have led to over 500,000 deaths.. if you are truly concerned than please explain why are you not campaigning for the removal of these sanctions. Instead all you are doing is championing the policies of the Bush Administration which advocate attacking a sovereign nation without any legal justification. You seem to support the notion that the UN can be sidelined and the Bush Adminstration has the right to instigate any war on the globe without UN authorisation. For your information the UN has predicted that there will be up to 500,000 Iraqi deaths in the early stages of war.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
myvoice, you have admitted here that you are against the sanctions regime which have led to over 500,000 deaths.. if you are truly concerned than please explain why are you not campaigning for the removal of these sanctions. Instead all you are doing is championing the policies of the Bush Administration which advocate attacking a sovereign nation without any legal justification. You seem to support the notion that the UN can be sidelined and the Bush Adminstration has the right to instigate any war on the globe without UN authorisation. For your information the UN has predicted that there will be up to 500,000 Iraqi deaths in the early stages of war.
[/QUOTE]

DHP: The problem with your position and those of the anti-war/anti-sanctions crowd is that they do not present a third alternative that will remove, disarm and/or adequately contain Saddam. I don't champion the removal of sanctions in the absence of some viable third alternative. If the choice were sanctions or nothing, I'd choose sanctions for all the reasons I set forth in my previous post. If the choice is military force or a continued sanctions regime, I choose military force.

I believe there is plenty of legal justification for attacking Iraq, contrary to your belief. Frankly, even if I couldn't find a strictly legal justification for attacking Iraq, I'd still be in favor of it. And yes, the UN can be sidelined and the US does have the right to engage in war without UN authorization. The US people and government have never surrendered and will never surrender to the UN our autonomy over our national security. This is true of all nations. Do you think India and Pakistan will seek UN authority to do so before starting their next war?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
DHP: The problem with your position and those of the anti-war/anti-sanctions crowd is that they do not present a third alternative
*
[/QUOTE]
myvoice the problem with yours is that you are ridiculing the need for the United Nations, you are trying to defend the right of the Bush Administration to blatantly ignore International Laws and Conventions. Please elaborate about what legal rights you have to attack Iraq.. and dont bother referring to UN resolutions, there are none which allow a pre-emptive attack against a sovereign nation.

Btw, the world is demanding that the Bush Administration allow the UN weapons inspectors to continue their essential duties in Iraq without blatant interferance. If there is any WMD found than its up to the UN to safely destroy it as they did after the last war. Analysts are stating that Iraq currently poses no danger to the region, yet the war mongers are trying everything they can think of, in order to justify an attack and its sad that many thousands of Iraqis are going to die as a result.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
myvoice the problem with yours is that you are ridiculing the need for the United Nations, you are trying to defend the right of the Bush Administration to blatantly ignore International Laws and Conventions. Please elaborate about what legal rights you have to attack Iraq.. and dont bother referring to UN resolutions, there are none which allow a pre-emptive attack against a sovereign nation.

Btw, the world is demanding that the Bush Administration allow the UN weapons inspectors to continue their essential duties in Iraq without blatant interferance. If there is any WMD found than its up to the UN to safely destroy it as they did after the last war. Analysts are stating that Iraq currently poses no danger to the region, yet the war mongers are trying everything they can think of, in order to justify an attack and its sad that many thousands of Iraqis are going to die as a result.
[/QUOTE]

DHP: Whether an act is legal or illegal is often simply a product of opinion and argument. In our legal system, it is the opinion of a jury, a judge or a combination of judges that ultimately matters. You have formed your opinion. I'd wager pretty long odds that you would still find military action against Iraq to be "illegal" even if a second UN Security Council Resolution authorizes it. Too many times I have seen Guppies label a UN Security Council Resolution as a legal one or an illegal one based upon whether they agree with it or not.

BTW, the world is not demanding anything of the Bush Administration. Analysts that you happen to agree with and like probably do say Iraq poses no danger to the region. It is probably a lot easier for you to dismiss the Analysts who say something else as "war mongers" than to attempt to critically re-evaluate your own thinking based upon their facts and arguments.