Reality check:How many of you would let 100,000 children starve??

[healthmyths]

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.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

 

[J.E.D]

It must be that time of the week again. Healthmyth's weekly Bush apology/revisionist history/Iraq invasion excuse thread.

 

[J.E.D]

I really would like to know how much the Bush and/or Cheney family is paying you to post this crap day in and day out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reality check:How many of you would let 100,000 children starve??

I suppose I would since I don't have that kind of money.

 

[Siete]

In 1990, UN Security Council resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions and an embargo on Iraq as a punitive measure for its invasion of neighbouring Kuwait.

The sanctions were designed to strip Iraq of its import and export capabilities and persuade it to withdraw from Kuwait to internationally-recognised borders.

Iraq did not withdraw.

In February 1991, US-led military action ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait but the sanctions were to continue until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed in 2003.

However, by 1996, the UN sanctions were beginning to erode Iraq's once-thriving middle class and debilitate the country's health care system.

The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

Food was exempted from the sanctions in the oil-for-food program. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[healthmyths]

In 1990, UN Security Council resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions and an embargo on Iraq as a punitive measure for its invasion of neighbouring Kuwait.

The sanctions were designed to strip Iraq of its import and export capabilities and persuade it to withdraw from Kuwait to internationally-recognised borders.

Iraq did not withdraw.

In February 1991, US-led military action ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait but the sanctions were to continue until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed in 2003.

However, by 1996, the UN sanctions were beginning to erode Iraq's once-thriving middle class and debilitate the country's health care system.

The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003

Saddam need ONLY to CERTIFY he destroyed his WMDs!

Do you understand? YOU are blaming the wrong GUY!
More importantly IF those of us compassionate and caring people hadn't called Saddam's BLUFF and Obviously it was a BLUFF which HE
had NO problem is starving his OWN people... Why are YOU faulting the SANCTIONS?
SADDAM all he needed to do was CERTIFY !
YOU are excusing HIM!
It was HIS doing and you are just as bad as HE was in you are blaming the wrong people!

 

[HenryBHough]

Can't let 'em starve.

Pack 'em a nice box lunch and set them on the road home.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 1990, UN Security Council resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions and an embargo on Iraq as a punitive measure for its invasion of neighbouring Kuwait.

The sanctions were designed to strip Iraq of its import and export capabilities and persuade it to withdraw from Kuwait to internationally-recognised borders.

Iraq did not withdraw.

In February 1991, US-led military action ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait but the sanctions were to continue until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed in 2003.

However, by 1996, the UN sanctions were beginning to erode Iraq's once-thriving middle class and debilitate the country's health care system.

The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003

Saddam need ONLY to CERTIFY he destroyed his WMDs!

Do you understand? YOU are blaming the wrong GUY!
More importantly IF those of us compassionate and caring people hadn't called Saddam's BLUFF and Obviously it was a BLUFF which HE
had NO problem is starving his OWN people... Why are YOU faulting the SANCTIONS?
SADDAM all he needed to do was CERTIFY !
YOU are excusing HIM!
It was HIS doing and you are just as bad as HE was in you are blaming the wrong people!

Food was allowed in the oil for food program.

It was the inspectors who had to certify, not Saddam.

Saddam was forced to prove a negative, i.e., that he didn't have weapons. That was the Bush administration's can't lose trick that assured that Saddam could not comply.

 

[healthmyths]

It must be that time of the week again. Healthmyth's weekly Bush apology/revisionist history/Iraq invasion excuse thread.

Where in fuc...k is this a REVISION???
NYT wrote the piece I didn't!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

AND don't go BLAMING the sanctions or UN!
YOU are just as f...king responsible as Saddam then!
All that dick head had to do was state "There are NO WMDs"!
THAT's IT! Sanctions lifted...2 million kids wouldn't starve!
BUT no idiots like you keep forgetting the dumb f...k kept bluffing!
Is it so hard to comprehend that compassionate feeling people like me and others hated seeing these kids starve when
all Saddam had to do was certify WMDs were destroyed.
HE didn't! So based on the fact HE had no problem with the kids starving what other conclusions would any sane person come
to that HE HAD WMDs!!!
And these democrats bEFORE Bush said so!

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!



A) please you had only 13 words to spell correctly and even then ignored the red dotted underline on "Midle"??
B) Why ask such a dumb question when all you need do is google: "countries with US military"

and you'll see "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, [including Africa and the Middle East] with approximately 160,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 117,000 deployed in various contingency operations."

Where is YOUR source because I researched didn't GUESS!

This source: U.S. military personnel by country

I then added up the total from 150 countries - 328,548
Europe/Japan 116,260 including bases!


United States military deployments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry but I just question people commenting without doing just the minimum of scholarship!

Maybe you should have told everyone before 1991 Desert Storm... including the below Democrats that obviously DIDN"T have the information sources YOU had!
And maybe you should have told Saddam's son-in-law what YOU knew , who described in this PBS special describes,

"He [Saddam] got preempted though, by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, the number-two man in Iraq, [who] chose to defect basically as a result of a whole series of bizarre circumstances. Hussein Kamel's defection threw a monkey wrench into Saddam's plans because Hussein Kamel knew everything about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.
He had been the man responsible for building them. He was also part of the highest-level committee that Saddam had, that was responsible for hiding the weapons on mass destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/pollack.html

So of course YOU knew so much more then the guy was 2nd in command for Saddam's WMDs and the below right??
Why aren't you president???

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.


You know people like you that continually ignore the FACTS are to be really pitied!
I truly feel very sorry that such closed uninformed people like you can't seem to face the facts!
Democrats /GOP alike all believed if Saddam didn't want to certify there were no WMDs, enough to care about 100,000 kids a year starving what other conclusion would there be?? NO sane compassionate leader wants to see 100,000 kids starve.. all for a bluff?

 

[Siete]

In 1990, UN Security Council resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions and an embargo on Iraq as a punitive measure for its invasion of neighbouring Kuwait.

The sanctions were designed to strip Iraq of its import and export capabilities and persuade it to withdraw from Kuwait to internationally-recognised borders.

Iraq did not withdraw.

In February 1991, US-led military action ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait but the sanctions were to continue until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed in 2003.

However, by 1996, the UN sanctions were beginning to erode Iraq's once-thriving middle class and debilitate the country's health care system.

The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003

Saddam need ONLY to CERTIFY he destroyed his WMDs!

Do you understand? YOU are blaming the wrong GUY!
More importantly IF those of us compassionate and caring people hadn't called Saddam's BLUFF and Obviously it was a BLUFF which HE
had NO problem is starving his OWN people... Why are YOU faulting the SANCTIONS?
SADDAM all he needed to do was CERTIFY !
YOU are excusing HIM!
It was HIS doing and you are just as bad as HE was in you are blaming the wrong people!

I'm not blaming anyone ,,,, just posting the facts

pay attention.

 

[healthmyths]

In 1990, UN Security Council resolution 661 imposed economic sanctions and an embargo on Iraq as a punitive measure for its invasion of neighbouring Kuwait.

The sanctions were designed to strip Iraq of its import and export capabilities and persuade it to withdraw from Kuwait to internationally-recognised borders.

Iraq did not withdraw.

In February 1991, US-led military action ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait but the sanctions were to continue until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed in 2003.

However, by 1996, the UN sanctions were beginning to erode Iraq's once-thriving middle class and debilitate the country's health care system.

The UN estimated that up to 1.7 million Iraqis may have died as a result of the sanctions; 500,000 of them were children, by 2003

Saddam need ONLY to CERTIFY he destroyed his WMDs!

Do you understand? YOU are blaming the wrong GUY!
More importantly IF those of us compassionate and caring people hadn't called Saddam's BLUFF and Obviously it was a BLUFF which HE
had NO problem is starving his OWN people... Why are YOU faulting the SANCTIONS?
SADDAM all he needed to do was CERTIFY !
YOU are excusing HIM!
It was HIS doing and you are just as bad as HE was in you are blaming the wrong people!

Food was allowed in the oil for food program.

It was the inspectors who had to certify, not Saddam.

Saddam was forced to prove a negative, i.e., that he didn't have weapons. That was the Bush administration's can't lose trick that assured that Saddam could not comply.

NO he was to certify HIS WMDs were destroyed! Everyone (possibly except the IRS) keeps records. IF SADDAM wanted to prove he destroyed he could!
And you seem to forget Saddam's son-in-law..' I'm not saying this PBS is!!!

"He [Saddam] got preempted though, by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, the number-two man in Iraq, [who] chose to defect basically as a result of a whole series of bizarre circumstances. Hussein Kamel's defection threw a monkey wrench into Saddam's plans because Hussein Kamel knew everything about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.
He had been the man responsible for building them. He was also part of the highest-level committee that Saddam had, that was responsible for hiding the weapons on mass destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/pollack.html

Do you understand?? With Kamel's information about WMDs there was Proof they existed. Now all Saddam had to do was show the certifications he destroyed!
HE wouldn't! That's not proving a negative because there were documents Kamel knew existed that showed WMDs existed. Now if Saddam destroyed why couldn't he show those documents?

 

[healthmyths]

The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.

 

[healthmyths]

This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
Rubin said that if Kerry had been president during Bush’s first term, the US would “in all probability” have invaded Iraq by then.
On February 17, 1998, President Clinton declared, in a speech to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the US was preparing for military action against Iraq. He asserted that American policy was open-ended war:
“Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq’s activities with all the means at our disposal.
If [Hussein] seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.”
However, a UN team negotiated a last-minute deal whereby Hussein granted Unscom access to the presidential palace and other sensitive sites, thus averting war.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

 

[healthmyths]

AND REMEMBER this was BEFORE 9/11!!!
Clinton/Kerry wanted Iraq liberation!!!!

 

[Siete]

AND REMEMBER this was BEFORE 9/11!!!
Clinton/Kerry wanted Iraq liberation!!!!

so why are you yacking about actions that happened last century? you can't change history.

 

[bendog]

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.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

That wasn't the reason BushII gave for the loss of over 4K military members, the maiming of tens of thousands and the destruction of military families. And, no, it wouldn't have been worth that even if BushII had used that excuse.

 

[healthmyths]

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.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

That wasn't the reason BushII gave for the loss of over 4K military members, the maiming of tens of thousands and the destruction of military families. And, no, it wouldn't have been worth that even if BushII had used that excuse.

These Democrats wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton wanted Saddam gone.
The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
And this was all done before 9/11!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Finally what difference does it make whether it was the false premise Saddam was bluffing on i.e. he had WMDs,etc.. the Liberation of Iraq
saved nearly 2 million children from starving...
Whether it was done by Bush as an extension of the Clinton agenda to remove Saddam it DID as a fact save 2 million children and that is wrong???

 

[rdean]

If Republicans don't care about Iraqi Christians, they certainly don't care about Iraqi children. Especially after they want to cut food stamps and school lunches for poor children here in this country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saddam need ONLY to CERTIFY he destroyed his WMDs!

Do you understand? YOU are blaming the wrong GUY!
More importantly IF those of us compassionate and caring people hadn't called Saddam's BLUFF and Obviously it was a BLUFF which HE
had NO problem is starving his OWN people... Why are YOU faulting the SANCTIONS?
SADDAM all he needed to do was CERTIFY !
YOU are excusing HIM!
It was HIS doing and you are just as bad as HE was in you are blaming the wrong people!

Food was allowed in the oil for food program.

It was the inspectors who had to certify, not Saddam.

Saddam was forced to prove a negative, i.e., that he didn't have weapons. That was the Bush administration's can't lose trick that assured that Saddam could not comply.

NO he was to certify HIS WMDs were destroyed! Everyone (possibly except the IRS) keeps records. IF SADDAM wanted to prove he destroyed he could!
And you seem to forget Saddam's son-in-law..' I'm not saying this PBS is!!!

"He [Saddam] got preempted though, by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, the number-two man in Iraq, [who] chose to defect basically as a result of a whole series of bizarre circumstances. Hussein Kamel's defection threw a monkey wrench into Saddam's plans because Hussein Kamel knew everything about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.
He had been the man responsible for building them. He was also part of the highest-level committee that Saddam had, that was responsible for hiding the weapons on mass destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/pollack.html

Do you understand?? With Kamel's information about WMDs there was Proof they existed. Now all Saddam had to do was show the certifications he destroyed!
HE wouldn't! That's not proving a negative because there were documents Kamel knew existed that showed WMDs existed. Now if Saddam destroyed why couldn't he show those documents?

Excuse me. OIL FOR FOOD program. You have no argument. The sanctions didn't starve anyone.