The real victims of "peace"

by expatbrit 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    The victims are the children, of course.

    In 1999 UNICEF (The United Nations Children's Fund) conducted a survey in Iraq to determine the effect of sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the United Nations.

    What had sanctions done?

    The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.

    And in practical terms, what does this mean?

    Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."

    So, we have an eight year period, and 500,000 premature deaths of children under 5.

    500,000 / 8 years = 62,500 per year = 1,202 per week = an average of 171 children per day under 5 dead.

    It's worth emphasising that this is just under fives. Obviously including up to age ten, for instance, would lead to higher figures. And since the survey, another four years of sanctions have been inflicted.

    This is the result of diplomacy. Twelve years of dying kids. It is the one reason, more than any other, why I support a war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, a regime which brought these sanctions upon the people of Iraq. Remove the regime, and you remove any rationale for continued sanctions. I don't care if Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction nastier than a toothpick. The UN sanctions are weapons of mass destruction, and they've hit civilians and their children for 12 years. If the regime stays, the sanctions will stay.

    When Mr. Chirac and the anti-war lobby argues for continuing diplomacy, more time for inspections, they also argue for more time for sanctions (I thought about calling this thread "Chirac - accessory to child murder."). Every day of delay is another day the regime continues in existence, and aid is denied the Iraqi people. Another day of starvation and disease for those children.

    So when you light your candles and march for peace and protest that "war is always the worst option", remember the children who are dying for your "morality." May they weigh heavily upon your consciences.

    Expatbrit

    http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

    http://www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.html

  • LB
    LB

    In order for evil to triump it only takes good men to do nothing.

  • safe4kids
    safe4kids

    Expat,

    Thanks for the information and the links. I think the hardest thing for me with regards to this war is knowing what to believe and what is merely propaganda. It's incredibly difficult to wrap my mind around the thought of so many people, especially children!, suffering and dying...I can't help but think what if that was my son or daughter? I can't support a war that is primarily economic in nature but humanitarian reasons? That's quite different.

    Dana

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Had Saddam disarmed, as agreed to and mandated by UN resolution after resolution, the sanctions would have been lifted years ago. To ask for more time and accept such feeble attempts at disarming and destruction now only prolongs the suffering of the Iraqis. Saddam has been allowed to sell oil for food for many years under the sanctions and has sold a lot of oil, billions of dollars worth. It didn't go for the people but for his private palaces and I have to believe building more weapons.

    Diplomacy and resolutions have failed. He has had 12 years to disarm and get the sanctions lifted. Even Hans Blix admits had he actuallt disarmed the sanctions would be gone by now. The cat and mouse game needs to end and the people of Iraq deserve better. That so many nations choose to back Saddam and allow the Iraqis to continue suffering, while Saddam lives in the lap of luxury, is a testimony to the ineffectiveness of the United Nations.

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    [b]LB:[/b] Yes indeed. This proverb should be tattooed on Chirac's colon, so he has something to read while his head is up his ass.

    [b]Dana:[/b] Much has been made of the war being for oil. These claims are nonsense, and bear no resemblance to economic realities. Just to increase oil production will take a huge investment and years of effort. Put very simply, if it's oil the US wants, war a very bad way of getting it. It's so easy for people to trot out anti-American tripe, and fool themselves that they are taking a moral position. Meanwhile, kids die.

    [b]Dakota:[/b] You hit the nail on the head. The crux of the matter is that while Saddam's regime continues, the suffering will continue. And without the use of military force, his regime will stay.



  • Seven
    Seven

    Sadam's use of v poison gas against defenseless women and children in the Kurdish village of Alaja are the most publicized of his attracities, less well publicized are the massacres with conventional weapons in the 1,200 Kirdish villages he destroyed.

    Saddam employed chemical and biological weapons against the village of Alaja (phon) where he killed some 5,000 people, overwhelmingly women and children, because the men were working in the fields. [Cook] Cook, Robin. (British Foreign Secretary) "Standing up to Saddam's Terror State," edit transcript of press conference, December 19, 1998.

    "Other accounts indicates that Saddam's security forces starve babies or gouge out the eyes of children within the sight of their horrified parents mothers." [Pollack] Pollack, Kenneth M. The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House, 2002), 384p.

    Amnesty International reports in 2002 documenting 170,000 Iraqis that have simply disappeared during the past two decades. [Samari] Samari, Kamal. (Amnesty International) in Glenn Frankel, "Britain releases new report alleging Iraqi rights abuses," Washington Post December 3, 2002. A21.

    Expie,

    Thanks for taking a stand. At first I was skeptical about the extent of the atrocities being commited until I read what the Amnesty International folks had to report last year. What have you read? I've read well documented reports of boys being shot at point blank range in the head and the heart in front of their parents, women and girls being raped... This has got to stop even if the US is in it alone-so be it. I just heard a French representative say on CNN that if the Iraqis gas our troops that they may have to reconsider their policy. Well **** them. Too late. They chose to stay home-stay there. No hard feelings.

    seven

    alt

    giving small pox a face

  • LB
    LB

    Amazing photos Seven. But don't you agree with Simon and others here that we should just talk about this some more?

    Or should we do something about it?

  • TR
    TR

    Thanks, expat.

    Wonder why these things aren't brought up at the televised UN meetings. Maybe I missed it.

    It all boils down to Saddam being solely responsible for the suffering of his people. Since he's evidently a sociopath/murderer, I expect that Saddam could give a rat's ass about the welfare of his people. I mean look, he's willing to let the U.S. wipe them out!(mostly his military)

    TR

  • Simon
    Simon
    It all boils down to Saddam being solely responsible for the suffering of his people. Since he's evidently a sociopath/murderer, I expect that Saddam could give a rat's ass about the welfare of his people. I mean look, he's willing to let the U.S. wipe them out!(mostly his military)

    Claiming he bares sole responsibility is an 'easy' and naive belief. Some important questions surely are:

    • Who put him there?
    • Who kept him there?
    • Who gave him the means to do what he did?

    Don't these people bear some responsibility? Of course now we're getting onto an uncomfortable topic where answers are not as clear cut or simple. If Saddam was responsible for 5,000 deaths and is a 'monster', what does this make someone who causes 50,000 or 250,000 deaths? Surely, they must be a monster too?

  • TR
    TR

    Simon,

    Claiming he bares sole responsibility is an 'easy' and naive belief. Some important questions surely are:
    • Who put him there?
    • Who kept him there?
    • Who gave him the means to do what he did?

    Don't these people bear some responsibility? Of course now we're getting onto an uncomfortable topic where answers are not as clear cut or simple. If Saddam was responsible for 5,000 deaths and is a 'monster', what does this make someone who causes 50,000 or 250,000 deaths? Surely, they must be a monster too?

    Pure BS 'ol chap.

    Sometimes supporting someone goes 'sideways' on you.

    Saddam murdered his way into power. It certainly wasn't the U.S. that has kept him in power, at least since '90.

    Well, let's see, he got his nuke capabilty from France and Italy, which thankfully got wiped out by the Israelis in the early 80's. So, I'm not sure if Saddam is using that same technology or not.

    I guess Russia, or the former Soviet Union supplied most of Saddam's armament. Scuds, T-72's, etc. Ha! You should see the turrets pop off those T-72s when a 120mm projectile from a U.S. Abrams tank hits them. Funny!

    TR

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit