posted on January 20, 2003 09:52:06 PM new
"UN tells us that US sanctions have already CAUSED over 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq."
Yes, Helen has already supplied the links about the number of dead babies per sq mile etc. Unfortunately, the little asterisk says, "in lieu of independent corroboration, figures are those supplied by the Iraqi government."
posted on January 20, 2003 10:55:03 PM newDeSquirrel
I have no idea why you chose to broach this topic in the anti-war march thread. As you can see from reading the thread that I provided, the figure that you wrongly attributed to me is not correct.
This is the excerpt from the article that I posted in which the truth about the children in Iraq can be found.
excerpt....
As embargo critic Richard Garfield, a public health specialist at Columbia University, wrote in his own comprehensive 1999 survey of under-5 deaths in Iraq, "The 1995 study’s conclusions were subsequently withdrawn by the authors....Notwithstanding the retraction of the original data, their estimate of more than 500,000 excess child deaths due to the embargo is still often repeated by sanctions critics."
Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were "mainly associated with the Gulf war." The chief causes, in his view, were "contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."
Ultimately, Garfield argued, sanctions played an undeniably important role. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded. "[And] excess deaths should...be seen as the tip of the iceberg among damages to occur among under five-year-olds in Iraq in the 1990s....The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare....To the degree that economic sanctions complicate access to and utilization of essential goods, sanctions regulations should be modified immediately."
Garfield’s conclusion echoes that of literally every international agency that has performed extensive studies in Iraq. In 1999 a U.N. Humanitarian Panel found that "the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated." UNICEF’s Carol Bellamy, at the time her landmark report was released, said, "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." The former U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, travels around the world calling the policy he once enforced "genocide." His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in protest of the U.N.’s "criminal policy."
12pole
How do you figure bear1949 is not an anti-Semite, if that's what you are saying.
Is it because you think he's a Semite just as the Iraqi's are?
'learn about the country'???
I and most of the world it seems to me, know enough about American Government practises to know that their claim of wishing to 'liberate' Iraq is a lie.
As many of your countrymen and women with open eyes also know.
Ask Oliver North, if he thinks the guns went to fight drugs or the 'red-peril'.
While your at it ask yourself.
How Does The Saying Go, (it may help you to work it out yoursef),
Is It-
Better Dead Than Red,
OR
Better Dead Than A Druggie.
posted on January 21, 2003 08:15:49 AM newBurn Baby, Burn
"If you must burn our flag, wrap yourself in it first."
Reminds me of watching news programs where people dressed in their robes are setting our flag on fire. Jumping over it, celebrating it's destruction, etc. I've always thought it would be fitting if their clothes caught on fire.
posted on January 21, 2003 08:40:05 AM newIs it because you think he's a Semite just as the Iraqi's are?
DO YOU KNOW HE IS NOT?
BUT TO ENLIGHTEN YOU TO THE 21ST CENTURY MEANING OF THE DEFINITION ANTI-SEMITE
Actually the word is a misnomer, as most of what we think of as Arab peoples are also a Semitic people, however the dictionary affirms that the term is used only to denote hostility or prejudice against Jews.
NICE TRY TO ADD THE ARABS IN THERE, MAYBE IN THE PAST BUT NOT NOW.
BUT BEING/LIVING IN AUSTRAILIA, YOU PEOPLE ARE THE POSTER CHILD OF CIVIL RIGHTS...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 21, 2003 08:40 AM ]
posted on January 21, 2003 09:19:57 AM newYou wish they would set themselves on fire simply because they were protesting?
Simply because? No. Although I find it interesting that you appear to find this way of protesting acceptable. Your flag represents nothing to you? Just another way to protest? oh brother.
posted on January 21, 2003 09:34:46 AM new
I made it perfectly clear that the use of fire to demonstrate was unacceptable because of the danger.
The flag is a piece of cloth or paper, manufactured in China. It represents the United States of America and is used by some protestors to voice their unhappiness with US policy. I can understand that.
You, of course are seeing it as a lack of respect and patriotism. But, respect must be deserved to be meaningful. How can anyone respect what George Bush is doing to this country.
And I believe that these flag burners may have a better sense of patriotism than some who just follow the Bush administration like a bunch of cowed sheep and do nothing.
posted on January 21, 2003 12:08:51 PM new
This image was posted on another chat board. The most accurate depiction of the "regular" American today that I've seen in a while. I would make one addition, for the symbolically impaired, a collective caption which reveals the thought of each single unit.
posted on January 21, 2003 02:45:04 PM new
My U.S. flag was made in the U.S.A. not China.
And I believe that these flag burners may have a better sense of patriotism than some who just follow the Bush administration like a bunch of cowed sheep and do nothing.
I don't understand that... now what does burning the U.S. Flag have to do with Bush policy.. I suppose the point would be better made? by these protesters is by burning Bush's picture..... you know like they do in Iraq, of Saddam. Oh yeah, you can't do that there.........
posted on January 21, 2003 02:59:31 PM new
12pole
next you'll be telling us that many Americans are Semites.
Many Jews perhaps but not Semites.
Neo-Conservatives perhaps, Such as Project For The New American Century,, LINK-
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm
ALTERNATE VIEW-
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/466/466p3b.htm
posted on January 21, 2003 03:10:16 PM new
Who was former Presidential Adviser to Clinton, Sarah(don’t know surname)
She says Attack by Sadam is unlikely in foreseeable future, & was also announced by CIA last year…
After attack on Iraq, probability will be higher.
Alquaida & Sadam at moment are enemies because he is seen as a dictator and infidel, but they will have a common enemy after attack. Current US posture causes us to be “widely despised around the world”
posted on January 21, 2003 03:22:17 PM new
"Bush being pushed into Iraq War by Israeli Agents in U.S. Government"
http://www.nex.net.au/users/reidgck/BUSHAD.HTM
posted on January 21, 2003 04:12:15 PM new
There are only 4 Horses of the Apocalypse representing war, famine, pestilence and death. (white horse-war, the red horse-famine, the black horse-pestilence, and the pale horse-death) They haven't added, and I don't think they will. Good thing, those four surely look like enough to me.
Hi Linda !
Helen, I think I was being sarcastic sorry over that misunderstanding, as when I said they burned pictures of Saddam in Iraq. Everyone knows you can't do that, or a whole lot of other things there.
posted on January 21, 2003 04:48:24 PM newaustbounty
Apparently you have failed to read or choosen to ignore follow ups to some of your previous rantings about me being anti semite.
I will not repost those comments just to respond to your diatribe.
If the people of Iraq were truely interested in avoiding military conflict, why don't we see them protesting against Saadam? Why don't they have a democratically elected leader instead of a dictator? The people of Iraq will pay the price because {b]they chose not to stand up to Saadam.[/b]
Your ignorance can and lack of understanding can only be attributed your to current position, living upside down on the bottom of the world away from the real world.
==============================
"Some people I love, mostly Democrats but some Republicans, have taken to asking: Why do people like Bush? ... [T]he American people sense Mr. Bush's humanity. But what they don't get to sense -- and I think this is a major though not consciously thought out part of Mr. Bush's popularity -- is his mess. ... Mr. Bush doesn't bring his dramas and mess with him. He doesn't bring a sack of dysfunction on his back when he enters a room. He keeps his woes, his emotions, his private life to himself. An example of what I'm getting at. He recently fired his Treasury secretary and his chief economic adviser. He wasn't happy with them; he wanted someone else; they didn't leave; he fired them. Boom. Next. If he feels personal bitterness, anger, or arrogance toward them, we don't know. This is wonderful. If it had been LBJ or Richard Nixon firing Paul O'Neill, we'd all still be talking about the personal elements in the marriage gone bad. ... And Bill Clinton's White House was, it hardly needs be said, another hothouse, though of a different kind. But with Mr. Bush things aren't a big emotional drama. He seems stable. This is a relief. You get the impression he's like what he of course was, a businessman. When things work, good; when they don't, change. It's not personal. It doesn't have to be messy. It's not Shakespearean. Which is good. The world is quite dramatic enough. It's good especially at this time to be led not by the emotionally labile but the grounded and sturdy. They can see Mr. Bush is grounded. They're glad." --Peggy Noonan
================================
Speaking with a Big Stick
"There is a reason for all the tough talk, all the troop deployments, all the movement of battle groups, and all the high-level diplomacy with regard to Iraq. They are designed to PREVENT a war by constantly increasing the pressure - military, diplomatic, and psychological - not just on Saddam, but on his neighbors. If President Bush were eager to go to war, we'd be in it by now."
posted on January 21, 2003 05:56:01 PM new
Bear1949
Your reasons for attack!
Because the people of Iraq don’t “protest against Sadam” therefore we must ‘liberate ‘them.
Because they don’t have democratically elected leader.
You then go on to suggest that-
anything I say is uninformed/wrong because I live ‘upside down’ on Bottom of World in Australia, “away from the real world”.
The only time I can recall that you made an informative posting here with any sound logic was on a recent chat on BALISTICS.
12pole
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1983) p.1179
Semite:-
“A member of any of the peoples said to be descended from Shem or speaking a Semitic language.”
“Semitic languages: Assyrian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, Ethiopic, etc.”
Remember Jews are not necessarily Semites, Judaism is a religion, NOT a race, OR a language.
posted on January 21, 2003 06:39:25 PM new
>Helen, I think I was being sarcastic sorry over that misunderstanding, as when I said they burned pictures of Saddam in Iraq. Everyone knows you can't do that, or a whole lot of other things there.
Pretty soon, you won't be able to do that around here to pictures of Emporer Bush either! And a whole lot more.
posted on January 21, 2003 06:55:28 PM new
Hey Borillar!
Well, you know, obviously my beliefs on comments like Emperor Bush. See, I like so far what our President has done. I don't agree with everything he does... I do however agree with his policy on Iraq and the EMPEROR Hussien.
