How much we’ve helped the Iraqis

Since the beginning of the U.S. backed “genocidal” sanctions and our current war on Iraq, the mortality rate among Iraqi children younger than 5 has risen 150 percent.

U.S. humanitarian aid group Save the Children now estimates that 1 in 8 Iraqi children never make it to their fifth birthday.

Please, send your “thank you” cards to George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

4 Comments

  1. Ian

    Mmmm yes I think we’ve argued about this before. I’ll call BS. I don’t claim sanctions are the best solution, but outside of military action, what exactly do you suggest doing to a hostile nation? Now you can debate the definition of a “hostile nation”, whatever, but that would be kind of dodging the question. Tell me how we should’ve handled Iraq after the first Gulf War. Saddam did have WMD then. He wasn’t exactly friendly to the Shiites after Iraq part 1 (yeah yeah we helped him you say, I don’t quite buy it). What do you suggest we do to a country who’s leader commits genocide on his own people?

    “Won’t someone think of the children?” is a pretty weak argument by the way against sanctions. Theres a lot more to the issue than who imposes the sanctions. You can blame Saddam, Kuwait, Congress, and a whole hell of a lot of other people for the infant mortality as well. Hell, blame God or Allah or w/e if you want. Plus, a group named “Save the Children” is likely to have some biased information, seeing how its them who makes the “estimate”.

    And by your logic, we should praise GWB. He freed Iraq from the oppressive sanctions. He took the alternate path to controlling Iraq’s government, and it turned out dandy didn’t it?

    You missed the bigger story, which was Bush saying that we are fighting bin Laden in Iraq so that we don’t fight him here. Its a common Conservative thing to say, but I don’t know that hes ever actually voiced this. Now its in the history books. Forget respecting a nation’s sovereignty, we chose to draw our line in Iraq’s sands. Use their people’s backyards as a battleground. As long as its not ours, right? Who cares about their right to have a secure homeland. Next up, we take on those pesky Chinese from North Korea! Fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here! They will make that currency fair and we will get to tear down statues of Kim Jong Il for pictures in our childrens’ upcoming history textbooks showing the US to be the greatest nation ever, it will be grand!

  2. while i think Ian’s a bit carried away, yeah, I think he’s got a point — what’s *your* alternative suggestion? you don’t like using force (the occupation) or using diplomacy (sanctions). so what *do* you propose?

    it’s easy to bitch and moan without offering a viable alternative. in fact, that’s why the democrats keep losing and will lose again in ’08. sure what the republicans do doesn’t work 100%, but at least they’re not sitting there with their thumbs up their rectums complaining about a pain in the ass.

  3. Chris

    I’d prefer a hands-off approach to punishing the innocent people of Iraq.

    Let’s remember that Iraq never threatened us, and were our ally all through their worst crimes against humanity.

    Starving a million people in Iraq while Saddam got fat in his palaces, doesn’t seem like any kind of answer.

  4. Ian

    What exactly is the hand-off approach? Thats not an answer you gave.

One Trackback

  1. By On This Day In History on September 20, 2007 at 5:25 am

    On This Day In History…

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…