Iraq/Saddam

[Xtreme Fury]

We should invade Iraq and make it the 51st state. lol. It's sad we might kill a lot of innocent people just so we can kill sadam.

[omnifinite]

I know someone who talked to someone in the State Department the other day. Supposedly the attack is already underway. All this "will we or won't we?" stuff is just for show.

[Don Gwinn]

I haven't decided yet. It's a tricky subject for a citizen because I know I don't have the same information the leaders have--but that doesn't automatically mean that they're right.

 

However, we might as well start concentrating on how we will go about it, because it's going to happen. I've been hearing from military friends (mostly Son Tao, mentioned in the other thread) since last year that an invasion of Iraq was coming. Son wasn't particularly happy about it, because he believes this time will be much worse. If we want to go in with the idea of imprisoning or killing Hussein, we're going to have to fight in Baghdad in a way that will greatly reduce our advantages, which generally revolve around technology and air power. It might be a bit like Somalia. However, we did learn some lessons there that could help. The Rangers in Somalia gave up key advantages like night vision and body armor because they thought they wouldn't need them for a short daylight raid. That kind of thing shouldn't happen again, but it will still be vicious, house-to-house fighting. B-52's and F117's will not be of much use in that battle. We will win if we stay the course, but will it be worth it?

 

BlackI, I don't believe for a second that the whole world is against us. Britain is with us. Saudi Arabia said they wouldn't participate, but now they say they will. France and Germany will fall into line after their elections are over--Schroeder (sp?) just has to pander to his left wing a bit for the elections. There are many others. It's easy for Japan to say something like that, because it helps them curry favor with the oil states that they need much more than we do and doesn't cost them much because they weren't going to be contributing all that much anyway.

[Don Gwinn]

Patrick, if you meant that there should be no discussion of those statistics at all, feel free to delete this without notice. I won't mind; I'd just like to respond.

 

I, too, would like to know the source for both allegations. I hear the "500,000 children" remark bandied about quite a bit. I would point out that I've never heard of any outside organization confirming this Iraqi number, which makes it VERY suspect in my eyes in the first place. However, if we assume it is true, that leads us to my real objection.

 

HOW did the U.S. kill 500,000 children? The mechanism cited is that American sanctions caused that many children to die of disease and/or starvation. That is, of course, ridiculous, because it blames the U.S. for the terribly evil action of having enforced the treaties Iraq signed after its defeat in the war it began by invading and plundering its neighbor. Worse, it also absolves Iraq of any responsibility for having broken the treaties! Incidentally, it also ignores the fact that the U.S. and U.N. allow limited Iraqi oil sales which are supposed to pay for humanitarian efforts of exactly the type Hussein claims he would be funding if there were no sanctions, but there's no evidence that any children are saved by this concession on our part because the Baath Party pockets most of the money.

 

So in case you're keeping score at home, kids, it's bad to stop aggressors. It's bad to force the aggressor to promise to get rid of his weapons, even the nuclear and biological ones, and it's wrong to demand that he let you check to make sure he complied. However, it is NOT wrong to invade your neighbor, get defeated, then ignore the treaties you signed in defeat. In fact, if you do those things and anything bad happens to your people as a result, you can blame it on the nation that stopped you in the first place!

 

This is akin to the guy in California who sued a homeowner because he was injured and unable to work after he fell through the homeowner's skylight while trying to burglarize the house!

 

 

 

As for the 1 million Iraqi civilians, that would mean we killed about the same number of civilians in Iraq in one short blitz-style war as Iran and Iraq together killed in eight years of some of the bloodiest fighting of this century. Not the number of civilians they killed, but the total number dead from both countries. You honestly believe this?

[Northren Ogre]

I would like to see Saddam's regime topple, however I think it should have been done properly in the 90's during Desert Storm. George Bush isn't convincing me with his reasoning this go around. However if the US goes it alone and then wipes out Saddam, who are they going to replace him with? The problems with Iraq are not going to be solved with simply knocking off Saddam, just like the problems with Afghanistan are not soon over .

[Bitseach]

Where do you get these stats?

 

500,000 children? Just keep these "stats" out of the discussion or I/we will close the thread.

 

Thanks.

 

Well do you want to know where the data are from or do you want to close the thread?

 

Anyhoo, the "statistics" would appear to be from those "pinkos" at "Unicef" - the United Nations Children's Fund - and are based on the huge increase in infant and child mortality since sanctions were imposed by the west on Iraq. Read all about it at http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

 

The gist of it is here:

 

"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." "

 

Another interesting opinion piece comes from the bane of oppressive regimes everywhere - Amnesty International - at http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140112002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ

 

[Although I selected Iraq to find this article, they do of course have sections for every country in the world's state misdemeanors, including the UK and USA as well as traditional dictatorships such as Iraq, China, Korea etc.]

 

The AI article mentions the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by Sod'em Hussain himself, just to show some balance, as he tested out his chemical weapons on some (thousands of) tribespeople who didn't agree with him (free speech is *such* a good thing, doesn't everyone think?). Unfortunately as he was our enemy's enemy at the time (Iran was the bigger headache in the 80s) the UK didn't seem to care. Presumably the USA was the same.

 

The really pitiful thing is that Hussein does not give a flying foxtrot about the half a million children who probably would have survived to adulthood were it not for the oil sanctions - one doesn't see him or any of HIS children starving or lacking essential medicine, does one?

 

My sincere wish is that there will be a stable alternative to Hussein's regime when he gets the kicking he so richly deserves. One would certainly not want a power vacuum in the area to destabilise the area even further - anyone for a 3rd world war in the Middle East?

 

Apparently this was the reason for his not being "slotted" after the Gulf War. Certainly the British Army was willing and keen to continue the limit of exploitation as far as Baghdad (from some of the tank company and brigade commanders I spoke to about it after the event) but the political leaders (the other Bush) at the time did not permit it. The saddest part of the aftermath of the Gulf War was that there were insurrectionist movements who conducted several uprisings at the time, but as Allied security services suddenly withdrew their support they and their families were all butchered by Hussein's chicken"poo" cowardly soldiers.

 

And when we've achieved "regime change" in Iraq, can we do Zimbabwe next? Now Robert Mugabe, he's a w*nker!

 

I hope this thread is not now closed due to the addition of these pesky statistics! Much more interesting to debate the purported validity of the stats than see them as a detraction from an argument!!

 

Bits' (ex-British Army)

[Don Gwinn]

Bitseach, you really want fellow traveler Mugabe dead? To borrow a line from you, sir, perhaps I have underestimated you.

 

As for the stats, your quotes included the reason we should be so wary of them. First of all, even if you got them from UNICEF, that doesn't mean UNICEF was in-country and generated the stats. The Baath Party probably did that. But again, if we assume that they're true for the moment, what do we find?

 

That the supposed number of deaths is nothing more than a projection of what might have occurred! "If the trend in reduction of infant mortality had continued. . . ." What if it hadn't?

 

It does seem at least that you and I agree on the important part--the sanctions must have contributed to at least some suffering in Iraq, and it is entirely the fault of Hussein that the sanctions are in place. Quite frankly, the citizens who chose him and still cheer him share some of the blame for their own predicament. My own state governor is a criminal (not an exaggeration, he's a felon several different ways) and two other honest-to-God criminals are vying to replace him. I hate this, but the people of my state are choosing these idiots, so I can't very well claim that we bear no responsibility.

 

Hussein is up for "election" in a week or so. Maybe we'll see him voted out.

[Bitseach]

That's Ma'am to you!

 

Wouldn't shed tears in Mugabe suddenly popped his clogs, no! He has killed thousands of his own people by his own ineptitude and by putting his political expediency before the needs of his people to be fed adequately. Don't doubt the need for land reform in Zimbabwe but the area used to be one of the bread-baskets of Africa and now its people are starving because the farms are being over-run by "war veterans" (=hooligans) and whilst we usually only hear about the white farmers being run out of their farms, what is less known is the torture and murder of labourers on those farms and the mutilation and slaughter of livestock and pets on those same farms. I'd say a regime change there would be a good idea and in the current climate, that seems to mean people being ousted by force! So why not? Let's send in the gunships once we've dealt with Sod'em!?!

 

Anyway, I digress... I agree that the sources of the stats I quoted re: Iraq can be interpreted in several ways (although personally I would like to think that the UN had checked out the sources before publishing these figures as the UN is an organisation for which I have great respect but I could, of course, be being hoodwinked!).

 

Also, we agree that it is unconvincing even then that the half million or so children's deaths (IF the data can be believed) are the fault of the Western powers who are imposing the sanctions. Like I said, you don't see Hussein or his family starving or lacking medications, do you? It is his own corruption, poor leadership and megalomania that are causing the deaths, again IF the data can be believed.

 

However, the methodology is one that is often used in epidemiological studies and infant mortality trends are often used as an indicator in population studies so I am less concerned by the fact that they are THOSE data that are quoted. Proving causality is often shakey although if the situation suddenly improved re medicines for children and, with a small time lag there was a concomitant decrease in infant mortality that would add weight to the argument about causality. In science, and especially in population studies, there is hardly ever a black&white case and hardly anything is ever proven - usually there is just "evidence supporting the possibility/probability of"..whatever.

 

Cheers!

 

Bits'

 

(erstwhile genetic epidemiologist, who has published papers on aspects of infant mortality and infant health, although not with regard to this specific environmental challenge!)

[Don Gwinn]

And cheers to you, ma'am!

as the UN is an organisation for which I have great respect

 

See? I knew you could find something with which I could disagree.

 

The rest of your post made a great deal of sense.

[shotochem]

Posted: Tue 08 Oct, 2002 Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

And cheers to you, ma'am!

 

Quote:

 

as the UN is an organisation for which I have great respect

 

See? I knew you could find something with which I could disagree.

 

 

 

Now this is scary.... I agree with Don...

 

I hope this is not a habit forming trend..