# Why did Saddam allow 576,000 children to starve?



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years. The results of the survey will appear on Friday in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association.
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, *until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
*
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So if all these people believed Saddam had WMDs and Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed who would you believe?  
A UN inspection team that couldn't find WMDs in areas that Iraq allowed them to view OR
because Saddam in spite of 576,000 children starved refused to certify they were destroyed believe there were
WMDs?

Given that FACT i.e. Blix et.al. couldn't certify WMDs were destroyed as they weren't allowed in all of Iraq AND the FACT Saddam wouldn't certify that WMDs were destroyed... what conclusion would any sane compassionate person come to based on the fact 576,000 children starved?


----------



## Pogo (Feb 10, 2015)

Because they were lefthanded?

Just a guess....


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Because they were lefthanded?
> 
> Just a guess....


Obviously you are still fixated on playing with your diaper contents.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

As expected not ONE Iraq Liberation foe can answer.


----------



## Pogo (Feb 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Because they were lefthanded?
> ...



I'm not the one who came up with the idea, am I?

Yeah that's gonna follow you around like a bad smell.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 10, 2015)

Why was it Saddam's job to feed those kids?  Sounds like socialism to me right healthmyths?


----------



## Pogo (Feb 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
> 
> The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years. The results of the survey will appear on Friday in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association.
> The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, *until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
> ...



So you're saying -- "the analysis of what was in Iraq was unclear, and therefore George W. Bush was justified to invade it and not only kill a bunch of innocent Iraqi civilians but soak the shit out of our blood and treasury".

And I guess you're also saying "it had nothing to do with competing with his daddy".

-- who by the way is lefthanded.


----------



## Siete (Feb 10, 2015)

why did the UN security council impose sanctions on Iraq ?


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 10, 2015)

Because they were mostly Shiite children and he didn't care.  Plus he hoped that it would look bad to the world and the UN would then lift the sanctions.


----------



## Siete (Feb 10, 2015)

Baghdad wasn't exactly the land of plenty before the sanctions either. Malnutrition effected around 3% of the children then, and close to 13% of the kids after the sanctions.

Third world country, poor people, kids go without lots of things, food included.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

Pogo said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
> ...


Here I'll let the people of Iraq answer!!!
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... 
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. 
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. 
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- 
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

Siete said:


> Baghdad wasn't exactly the land of plenty before the sanctions either. Malnutrition effected around 3% of the children then, and close to 13% of the kids after the sanctions.
> 
> Third world country, poor people, kids go without lots of things, food included.


But the question is simple.
While Blix et.al.  couldn't find WMDs in the areas Saddam let them inspect, Saddam by NOT certifying WMDs were destroyed, who would you believe?
After all it was documented 576,000 children starved due to Saddam's refusal to certify WMDs were destroyed.
Why would then based on Blix etc. would we believe Saddam then the person that gave Blix et.al. permissions to inspect WHERE SADDAM said it was OK?
Then Saddam refuses to AGREE with Blix by NOT certifying the destruction of WMDs!
What conclusion would you have?


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Why was it Saddam's job to feed those kids?  Sounds like socialism to me right healthmyths?


Totally ignoring the point because YOU can't answer!
Why would Saddam NOT certify WMDs were destroyed?  After Blix said so... and if simply agreeing with Blix the sanctions would lift and the starvation would stop!
Why didn't he agree?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 10, 2015)

Were those children looking for "Free Stuff"????

Hey kid...if you are starving....get a freak'n JOB

Iraq was a conservative utopia


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

I am trying to get some simple answer to a simple question.
IF Blix said there were no WMDs based on the areas Saddam said inspections could go, why then didn't Saddam simply certify WMDs destroyed and then
sanctions lifted.  Life would be better.  Why didn't he just certify?


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Were those children looking for "Free Stuff"????
> 
> Hey kid...if you are starving....get a freak'n JOB
> 
> Iraq was a conservative utopia


NOT an answer to the question... why didn't Saddam if Blix SAID no WMDs simply certify WMDs destroyed and then lift the sanctions?
YOU can't answer the question so you write something stupid and totally irrelevant!
Come on!  You are smarter I assume then that!
Answer the question... If Blix said no WMDs why didn't Saddam agree and sanctions lifted?


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

Remember almost everyone BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs because why else would HE NOT certify his WMDs were destroyed and thus save 576,000 kids from 
starvation.  Why not agree with Blix?  Sign the certification and be done with it?


----------



## Pogo (Feb 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



So you're not only saying it was Saddam's job to feed his people but it's also *our *job to make Iraqis "feel better".

You international one-world socialist you.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Were those children looking for "Free Stuff"????
> ...


 
The world does not owe 576,000 children a Happy Meal

You hungry kid?  Get a freak'n JOB. Sweep floors, pick up trash, scrub toilets

Just like conservatives want American kids to do if they get a free lunch


----------



## Siete (Feb 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Baghdad wasn't exactly the land of plenty before the sanctions either. Malnutrition effected around 3% of the children then, and close to 13% of the kids after the sanctions.
> ...




nuke em.

LMAO

said sanctions were imposed in 1991, 4 days after the Gulf War, then later elaborated to include WMD's.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 10, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Because they were mostly Shiite children and he didn't care.  Plus he hoped that it would look bad to the world and the UN would then lift the sanctions.


 
Bingo.


----------



## bendog (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm going with heartless dictator for $500 Alex.  Not that that endangered the US at all.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


AGAIN points just float WAY WAY OVER YOUR idiotic stupid head!
The point was simple!
If Blix said NO WMDs then why didn't Saddam agree and certify thus lifting the sanctions?
Is that too complicated for you?
This crap about Bush Lied regarding WMDs is full of crap because idiots like you can't keep your mind on the topic!
I'll put it another way!
If Blix couldn't find WMDs, then why didn't Saddam certify?  It would have saved HIS life you dumb f...k!


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

You idiots making such stupid comments CAN'T obviously REFUTE the fact that Blix said there were none so why didn't Saddam certify WMDs were destroyed thus saving his life!  You idiots I've proven to you the justification for the Liberation of Iraq and YOU can't refute it!
Saddam insisted upon pain of death there were WMDs why else did he NOT sign and certify?


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2015)

Pogo said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


It appears Pogo's fetish is best explained by this:
Coprophagia, better known as the oral intake of one's own feces, is often observed in elderly people afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Scatolia, better known as the smearing of one's own feces, and sometimes referred to by nursing staff members as the 'finger painting' of fecal matter, is another behavior that has been commonly noted in this particular patient population
Coprophagia And Scatolia In Demented Elderly Residents allnurses


----------

