Interesting. You say you are being thoughtful, so let's step through this. The embargo is a UN embargo, not just a US one. Granted, we can exert influence in the UN, but enough to allow for the UN to be responsible for the needless death of 500,000 children? I don't think so. Under the embargo, food, medicine and other humanitarian goods are allowed. Why are they not available to the Iraqi population? Certainly, Iraq has sufficient hard-currency to buy what it needs. Is it spending money on other things, or simply withholding it? So, assuming that we have a dictator who cares more about public opinion than children in his country, what does the world do about an embargo? Do you end it to save the innocent children? It IS something which should be considered, but you would still be left with the problem that resulted in the embargo, leaving war as the only option. But you don't approve of that, either, do you? I can appreciate your compassion for these children. I agree that something must be done for them. Please tell us how to resolve the Iraqi issue, since you are anti-embargo and pardon my presumptions, but probably anti-war. Inaction is unaccaptable. Here's a couple of reports on Iraq's WMD programs, the reason for the embargo: http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_1.html Or: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/iraq_back.htm BTW, were you claiming that the US is responsible for those children's deaths, or did I misunderstand you?
ok you see here is what is misleading.... what is the baseline for the 500,000 kids dying? how many died before the sanctions were imposed in 8 years prior to those 8 years used for the study? hmmm...there is no mention of that unless i missed it, which i could have since i only skimmed the link. all it says is a vague comment that less than 500,000 would have died if the sanctions were not in place. do you know what one of my profs would say if i made a statement like that in one of my papers? he would call me a moron and say i didn't back up my statement with proof. you need proof to make claims....if you don't have the proof don't make the claims! also...why can't you put all the blame on saddam? he is a military dictator who only concentrates on maintaining his power! if he really did want to help his country out then he would stop trying to build an army and instead create an economic infrastructure. christ almighty...you would think the guy would get it by now...he isn't going to beat the US at anything. SO STOP TRYING!! quit getting in pissing contests and start saving your nation. it wouldn't keep getting bombed if the r****d would just stop trying to militarize. remember he was supposed to stop doing that after he lost the gulf war? its something that seems to be conviently forgotten! and finally, yes we did help keep him in power and we did make many mistakes during the cold war from our own misguided beliefs about communism. however, that does not mean that the guy shouldn't give a crap about his country and his people!
What do you mean? Sanctions were imposed in 1990. That data shows a significant increase in the mortality rates after 1990, reversing a downward trend prior to '90.
i see now...i looked at more and i got the link that listed mortality rates before and after. very sad...but still it does not help the argument that the UN sanctions are the cause of the rise in mortality. one thing is certain...its pretty clear iraq was doing better with infant mortality up until it decided to attack kuwait. makes you wonder how many children would have survived if saddam didn't decide to be so wreckless. so you can speculate about how many children would have survived if there were no sanctions, but one thing that you know is that if saddam would have concentrated more on his own nation's development and not conquering, then those children that died would probably be alive today. just another way of looking at it rather than the blame it on US/UN approach
