Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (213357)	1/17/2007 12:56:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"...and I do wonder about the UNICEF extrapolation. But of course we agree on the proposition that children should be protected from the bite of sanctions- and I think, in general, our government tries to keep that in mind as well." I suspect UNICEF is one of the more credible sources of information because they didn't seem biased about the direction of politics being played out in Iraq. They were critical of the sanctions for the reasons already given. However, they were even more opposed to our invasion because of the impacts that would have on children. I haven't seen (or looked for) post invasion reports from them that support the impacts they foresaw. Things are worse in Africa for children but not as the result of something that was intended as a political strategy.

To: epicure who wrote (213357)	1/17/2007 2:00:05 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not sure we can be all that certain about the conditions. If calculations about something as...hard, and ascertainable, as WMD could be wrong, then (imo) just about anything could be. It hard to imagine how you could put those two in the same category. WMD estimates were based solely on gossip and theoretical computations. For example there was gossip that there was a mobile weapons lab that could produce x quantities of weapon material. There was never a mobile weapons lab to begin with. UNICEF used a sampling technique of Iraqi households. Since the sanctions had so many loop holes for humanitarian relief and aid, they didn't have that much direct impact (imo) The measure wasn't loop holes the measure was how many children were identified as suffering from malnutrition. By relaxing the sanctions the malnutrition rate in Iraq was reduced, that was verified by going to households. Both sides used the 50,000 per year argument. Either it was Saddam's fault or it was the fault of the sanctions. And while each side argued over whose fault it was, the children died [or will suffer long term effects] of being severe malnutrition. The "Cause of Death" on a death cert isn't listed as "Saddam", "The US", "The Sanctions" or even severe malnutrition. It's going to be whatever the complications were that resulted from severe malnutrition. For whatever reason, no one seems to care anymore about the argument as it might exist today. Perhaps because we can't blame Saddam or the sanctions. "Iraqi children suffering alarming malnutrition - UNICEF by Corp Roters Monday, May. 15, 2006 at 8:45 PM "Under-nutrition should not be accepted in a country like Iraq, with its wealth of resources..." Malnutrition among Iraqi children has reached alarming levels, according to a UNICEF survey showing people are struggling to cope three years after US-forces overthrew Saddam Hussein. The report on food security and vulnerability in Iraq said almost one child in every 10 aged between six months and five years, suffered acute malnourishment. "Children are major victims of food insecurity," it said, describing the situation as "alarming". 15 per cent of households are classified as "Extremely Poor." A total of four million Iraqis, roughly 15 per cent of the population, were in dire need of humanitarian aid including food, up from 11 per cent in a 2003 report, the survey of more than 20,000 Iraqi households found..." maritimes.indymedia.org One in ten; 10%. Just prior to the war, it was ~4% before the sanctions were relaxed it was at a high of ~10%. If I remember the 4% and 10% correctly ... If 50,000 children a year were dying prior to the war due to complications of malnutrition, than there are probably 50,000 children a year dying now. The only difference is that no one cares to argue as to who is at fault. I'm sure if we did, the argument would be "It's because Bush invaded Iraq. No, it's because of the insurgents. Bush's fault. Insurgents fault....Bush's fault. Insurgents fault....Bush's fault. Insurgents fault....Bush's fault. Insurgents fault....You're a moron....you're a bigger moron...you're a bigger moron...you're a bigger moron...you're a bigger moron...you're a bigger moron...you're a bigger moron. Screw the kids. jttmab