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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fangorn who wrote (12587)	11/3/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 67261

Steven, According to UN estimates the sanctions on Iraq have caused the deaths of 600,000 children since they were imposed in 1990. This is just the children. According to Iraq's Health Minister Umeed Mubarak, the mortality rate for children under 5 years old has gone from 540 deaths per month before the embargo to the current rate of 5,600 per month. The sanctions imposed by the US/UN have placed an embargo on trade with Iraq. There are people all over the world dying of hunger and disease. I didn't say we should feed, cloth, medicate them. Where did you get that idea. I said that we are deliberately causing the deaths of innocent villagers by the sanctions we imposed. This is the target and only effect of these sanctions. Its not that a few villagers are dying while we are fussing with Saddam. It is the whole strategy to cause the deaths of the villagers at the current rate of 5,600 children per month. This is costing the US tax payer's billions of dollars. The supposed goal initially was to put pressure on the infrastructure of Iraq so that Saddam would give up. We failed a long time ago. Is the hope now that eventually Saddam Hussein will be deposed and we can pretend it was a success that just took a little longer than expected. Saddam was once the strongest Arab ally to the US in the region. The Muslim countries haven't forgotten that. They are holding him and us equally responsible for this atrocity. What has now become apparent is that the goal has somehow switched to starving him out. How did this happen? Well what the designers of the plan didn't take into consideration is that the village population of Iraq hates Saddam. He is a military dictator who considers them only as resources to fuel his regime. When they are dissident he himself attacks and pillages the villages. If they could depose him they would have done it long ago. Maybe someday they still will. But it wont be as a result of the santions it would have to be miraculously in spite of them. He and his military will be the last to feel the effects of these sanctions and he has already managed to create supply lines in spite of the embargo. <<You seem to think that we should feed, clothe, and medicate the neglected citizen's of Iraq while Sodamn Insane builds a new war machine.>> Not true at all. I think we should stop spending billions to cause the death of innocent villagers. <<Bush should have sent Stormin' Norman to the heart of Baghdad in the first place.>> Maybe, several people on this thread saw it as a catch 22 at the time. So, now years later we have government sponsored genocide of innocent villagers because there is basically no active leadership on real resolutions to the problem. <<Our current President is apparently more willing to kill babies in Texas than bloody thugs in Baghdad (or Beijing or Belgrade)>> Although this is the worst mass death march of innocent people this century, there is a glaring lack of media attention. It wont always be the case.