US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam.

*A Country Destroyed - US has now killed more Iraqi women and children than Saddam Hussein.

by Paul Craig Roberts*

The link

(Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research
Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)

In a recent column,“Feeling a Draft”](Feeling a Draft - LewRockwell) (April 15), I reported that the US has now killed more Iraqi women and children than Saddam Hussein.

Two pro-Bush, pro-military superpatriots took offense, challenging me to provide evidence for my statement. US troops are not “baby-killers,” I was informed. Moreover, everything the US is doing in Iraq is not only correct, but also morally ordained by God.

And there I was thinking that Americans might be beginning to catch on that our boy president had no cause whatsoever to invade and occupy Iraq. One must wonder how many Americans are any longer capable of basic thought compared to the multitudes that sit in front of Fox News and receive their daily indoctrination.

The point of my article was not a shrill denunciation of US troops for killing Iraqi babies, but to note that we have no more troops with which to reinforce the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Moreover, if Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein for killing Iraqis, they were likely to feel the same way toward the US. The thoughtless US policy of macho force escalation is simply creating more hatred and more insurgents. It is our policy that is pushing Iraqis into extreme positions.

It is nevertheless stunning that a single American could be unaware of the enormous carnage that the US has inflicted on Iraq. That two Americans would challenge me to cite evidence is an indication that the US media is as subservient to the state as any in history.

Fortunately, there is the Internet where sites such as Global Policy Forum, Amnesty International, and Future of Freedom Foundation provide professional estimates of the number of Iraqis killed by US policy.

It is uncomfortable to discover that the vast majority of the world, including our former allies, regard the US invasion of Iraq as not merely illegal, but as a war crime under the Nuremberg standard.

Next you will discover that there were UN sanctions on Iraq, at US urging, from August 1990 until May 2003, during which time Iraq could not import or export anything without our approval. For a period during 2001 the Bush administration even embargoed infant vaccines and medical equipment from being sent to Iraq.

UNICEF estimated that the sanctions against Iraq resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5. In May 1996 “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the UN: “We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright responded: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

Subsequent estimates have reduced the number of child deaths to between 227,000 and 350,000. The sanctions interfered with food and medical supplies, and were modified with an “oil-for-food” program. On September 30, 1998,the BBC reported that Denis Halliday , coordinator of the program, resigned in disgust (after 30 years as an UN employee). The sanctions, he said, were killing 4,000–5,000 children a month. Halliday said the sanctions were strengthening Saddam Hussein by damaging “the innocent people of the country.”

Two months later (Nov. 26, 1998) UNICEF reported a 72% rise in “chronically malnourished” Iraqi children, with 960,000 Iraqi children fitting that description. UNICEF official Philippe Heffinck noted: “It is clear that children are bearing the brunt of the current economic hardship.”

To increase the destruction wrought by the sanctions, the US bombed Iraqi infrastructure. Writing in Harpers magazine (Nov. 2002), Joy Gordon quotes a Pentagon official: “What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.” Many thousands of children died as a result of contaminated water and the inability of hospitals to function without electricity and running water.

An October 2003 Global Policy Forum report based on surveys of hospital and burial society records and on AP and Knight-Ridder investigations concludes that 3,200–4,300 Iraqi noncombatants were killed in the US invasion. Many more were maimed.

The ongoing occupation continues to claim civilian lives and limbs, with 600 women and children reported killed by US troops recently in Fallujah. An Amnesty International report (March 18, 2004) lists gratuitous killings – murders really – of Iraqi civilians, men, women and children. Some were beat to death with rifle butts. Others were shot in the back. US troops even shot up a wedding party that they mistook for insurgents.

War breeds brutality. Our idealistic troops who were so proudly going to liberate Iraq from a dictator are now, according to Amnesty International, torturing Iraqis just like Saddam Hussein used to do, because they, too, need information to survive.

America’s brutal and barbaric 14-year old policy toward the Iraqi people has reduced a literate and emerging country to rubble. Soccer fields are turned to graveyards. Two decades of infrastructure accumulation is destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of families are impacted by deaths or injuries. A population is impoverished.

internet is the cheapest method for spreading yellow nesw.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
internet is the cheapest method for spreading yellow nesw.
[/QUOTE]

DId you check the credentials of the Author? Next time why dont you think before you speak!

Any word on how many Iraqi widows we've created ?

america has intevened, every one has problem, when saddam was killing, creating widows, his sons were hunting for iraqi un married girls, it was all acceptable.

Correct me if I am wrong, but “UN” means “UN”, not “US”. Perhaps you believe that all of the Security Council members are US poodles, in which case it is clear that the US really does control the world…

Any member of the Security Council could have vetoed the sanctions, once or many, many times. Please let me know why this did not happen?

I am also curious why NO ONE here ascribes any responsibility to Iraq for the Sanctions. You make it sound as if there is Saddam, then 24Million people who had nothing to do with anything. Saddam had a REGIME which included military leaders, industry leaders, the entire Baath party, Ministry employees, as well as tribal and local leaders. All of those folk were unwilling participants? Iraq attacks Iran and Kuwait in two separate wars and the only people fighting were Saddam and the two dysfuntional sons? Please…

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by anjjan: *
america has intevened, every one has problem, when saddam was killing, creating widows, his sons were hunting for iraqi un married girls, **it was all acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
*

Yes, acceptable for the international community which didn't seem to mind his sons kidnapping Iraqi girls pre-1991. They didn't seem to mind many of Hussein's quirks pre-Gulf War.

[quote]
I am also curious why NO ONE here ascribes any responsibility to Iraq for the Sanctions.
[/quote]

OG, We've been through this so many times it's not even funny.

It is funny when people can separate the population from the leaders. As if holistically the leaders are controlling, creating mayhem and are the solely responsible for the demise of the country. Saddam killed millions of shias, along with his henchmen the baathists, the sunnis who controlled the armedforces, terrorized the people. DIdn;t follow the terms of surrender ...they alone killed their kids. Everything else is displacement of blame.

Should Pakistan be blamed for what happened in Afghanistan? After all they were just as much to blame for the rise of the taliban, funding, training etc..

Yes, and now for the official notice: "The sanctions are over!".

Did the caring folk who cried about the sanctions rush in to bring relief to the long suffering Iraqi's, and if no, why not?

If the sanctions were so "Genocidal", why was there no flood of caring well wishers pushing aside the US soldiers to do a big group hug of the Iraqi people? And why are people rooting for the "insurgents" who have been so effective at driving out all of the NGO's from the country?

OG, i will tell you the reality. Half of these concerned souls that are so broken about the poor iraqi children, did nothing before and nothing after to help them. They cheered Sadddam,only because he was defiant to the world, they cheer the hoodlums holed up in fallujah because any semblance of success for the US in bringing democracy to Iraq, removing a tyrannical pass is seen a validation for their ineptitude.

They have done nothing, will do nothing, ecept for cutting and pasting articles on how evil the US is.

No! (He said truely shocked!)

Really?

From all of the teary emotional pleadings you would think that this was not about POLITICS, but the poor long suffering Iraqi people!

I am SO disappointed!

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Yes, and now for the official notice: "The sanctions are over!".
*
[/quote]

Shouldn't have taken twelve years for that official notice. Thank God the genocidal programme is finally terminated. But from the perspectives of ordinary Iraqis, they have every right in the world to question why they had to wait for twelve long years and be punished for the actions of one pathetic man. Sanctions should have been lifted years ago once the world was made aware of their consequences; using the stupid excuse that they wouldn't be lifted until Hussein was out of power, makes every pro-sanctions country just as evil as Saddam Hussein. (i know you'll cringe to read that).

[quote]
Did the caring folk who cried about the sanctions rush in to bring relief to the long suffering Iraqi's, and if no, why not?
[/quote]

What kind of caring folk are you referring to ? Maybe some form of help could be given to the Iraqi people if the United Nations were allowed to assume temporary authority of that country.

[quote]
*And why are people rooting for the "insurgents" who have been so effective at driving out all of the NGO's from the country?
[/QUOTE]
*

They may or may not be insurgents. Some of them may be ordinary Iraqi civilians. If the US admin cares so much for the poor Iraqis, then why doesn't the govt just leave the country - let the UN deal with the situation through a multi-national, predominantly Muslim (Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia) interim force. You give stability to the country (which admit it, the UK and US haven't been able to deliver in the past twelve months) and there will be no need for NGOs to be driven out of the country. People want stability, OG, and that is one of the many, many promises the US has failed to deliver. Time for a new interim authority whose sole non-economic motivation will be the betterment of the people of Iraq.

Why do you have to resort to excuses OG, and try to bring out parallels between vastly different scenarios, acting so naive all the time? Stand up for your country, man! America does what it does because it can. It has the power. All the laws and and geneva conventions in the world are at the convenience of the powerful only. Twist them, turn them ... whatever ... but do whatever that helps you sustain your power.

Just as you would like to convince all the Muslims here that their freedom fighters are world's terrorists, so should you have the guts to admit your country's wrongs. No need to act so defensive.

What is this fascination with having a muslim only peace keeping force. How come muslim forces didn;t get the balls to take down the Saddam regime, but now would gladly come in?

Why weren’t the muslim forces eager to leap into Bosnia? Oh I know…it is always easier to work with a blue helmet on, no real bravery is required. :k:

"then why doesn't the govt just leave the country - let the UN deal with the situation through a multi-national, predominantly Muslim (Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia) interim force."

What fantasy world are you living in?

First, if the US leaves the country it will erupt in a civil war the likes of which has not been seen in years.

Second, a predominantly Mulsim force is absolute fantasy. Show me where the "predominantly Muslim countries" have ever contributed more than a thousand troops total? Somalia, with the Pakistani's and the Maylays? A couple of hundred troops tops! There is absolutely no historical reason to beleive that your fantasy would ever materialize, and even less reason to believe that any force assembled would be capable enough to provide security.

And, you cannot run a country with one pathetic man, if so we would have sent Cheney over a long time ago!

OG,

What fantasy world are YOU living in ? Hello - 40 attacks per day in Iraq. That means almost two per hour. What do you call that - peace and stability ? :confused: You honestly believe there isn’t substantial instability in the country ALREADY? Give me a break.

Dick and George have had 12 months. Rather few positive policies they have implemented in those twelve months. Country’s fabric is ripped apart economically, politically and socially. What more torture would you like to see the children of Iraq go through ?

There is absolutely no historical reason to believe that your fantasy of occupying a sovereign country will ever materialize either. History has always proved otherwise. And i thank God for that.

Wane, Couldn’t be more in agreement w/your statements.

what haan..what happened to the muslim liberation force?

One more point, OG.... if the US was genuinely concerned about the well-being of the country, as you sincerely believe, then they would have no qualms in transferring authority to the UN. Why not go by the world's majority opinion? As far as i can see, only Israel, UK and maybe puny Lichtenstein want the US to be running the show in Iraq. Rest of the world's 100+ countries want to see the UN in power.

Nadia, show me any serious discussion of an all Muslim force.

Second, other than the past 4 weeks, there was indeed reconstruction and progress being made. Can you promise results if the "insurgents" are destroying efforts? No, let's be realistic, the "insurgents" are certainly not the forces of goodness and light. Even an "all Muslim" security force would have to deal with them.

There is no other way to stabilize Iraq. Even if you agreed on your fantasy force today, it would take a year to assemble into the country. Now please tell me this, why do the insurgents not adopt a political approach? the answer is simple. The gun is easier.

40 attacks a day? That could be done by 40 guys. There are no huge crowds rioting in the slums of Sadr city. The press is good at covering things that go boom. The real feelings of the Iraqi's have nothing to do with explosions....

Nadia,

Prove to me that the UN has enough troops to provide stability.

Kosov/Bosnia was run by NATO, and the largest thing the UN has run lately is East Timor, which is smaller than the state of RI. Remember, the UN was blown up in Iraq? What on earth makes you think things will be any better with the UN?

So far, nobody has come forward with a serious proposal other than hallway rhetoric in front of cameras for the management of Iraq. You may WISH that the UN was capable but the facts argue otherwise....