So much for 100,000 deaths in Iraq, try 12,000

Let’s not forget the millions killed in Saddam’s three wars: Iran, Gulf I and Gulf II. So I disagree that it is only 800,000. If the US is going to be held accountable for every traffic fatality in Iraq since we invaded, I think that we can include deaths from Saddam’s wars in the total. Let’s make that 3.5 million and split the difference. Shall we?

Oh damn. I always do get confused on mean and median. What is the difference again?

The U.S. made the ultimate moral choice in the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children from disease and malnutrition when it refused to lift the sanctions after it became clear Saddam Hussein was going to squander the oil for food and medications income on himself:

“We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s reply to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, May 1996

Saddam is mean. Bush is running around the whitehouse going, “I got me a score of 25,000! I got me a score of 25,000!”

[quote=“spook”]“I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s reply to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl’s question, May 1996[/quote]

I remember that quote. You almost felt bad for her. Even a 20-something State Dept. intern wouldn’t have given such a confused and inept response. Oh well, old Maddy Albright was never exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer was she?

As for your basic point that it was the US’s fault that Saddam starved the Iraqi children by embezzling their oil-for-food money – that’s your call if you want to take that position. Even more than most of the matters we discuss here, the responsibility for the death of hostages seems to be very much a matter of perspective.


I
magine a mass-murderer has holed-up in an in an elementary school. The police surround the school. He tells the police that he’s going to murder one child every hour until the police agree to his demands (give him cash, give him a helicopter, remove sanctions on country X, whatever). In my mind, the murderer holding the children hostage bears responsibility for the death of those children. In my mind the police are doing the right thing by not giving the murderer a helicopter and allowing him to go free to murder others later.

But what if the seige continues? Imagine that they spend days negotiating and negotiating… and the hostage-taker manages to string them along for a week without ever actually giving himself up. Eventually the children in the school start starving. The police deliver food to the school, but the terrorist doesn’t actually give it to the children. What then?

I freely admit that one can make the argument: [color=black]“Once it became clear that the terrorist wasn’t going to use the food to prevent the children from starving, the police are the ones who should be blamed for any children who die. They made the choice not to give the mass murderer his cash and helicopter.”[/color]

I disagree with that view, but I accept that you might see it that way.

I guess eventually, as the children start dying of starvation, the police might finally decide that that the murderer had been given enough chances to negotiate. The police might therefore decide to go for option #3: send the swat team into the school and take him out.

Then again, I have reason to believe that you wouldn’t like that solution either would you spook? :s

First off we should remember that IraqBodyCount maintains its numbers are low.

Also, remembering Ms. Albright’s comments that [roughly] “the 500,000 dead from sanctions was a high price to pay, but ‘we’ think it’s worth it,” I always figured that implied that the first-person plural was responsible, at least in part, for those deaths as well. And don’t forget that the sanctions began years before “oil-for-food” did. So attributing all those deaths from lack of food/clean water/medicines solely to Saddam and not also to the US, UK, and UN seems innappropriate.

Looks like using your evidence and rational, Hobbes, you might be obliged to say that Saddam’s total is closer to 300,000. While coaltion casualties are greater than 25,000.

However, IraqBodyCount maintains that these types of comparisons are quite off base.

Good observations, s.b.

See my response to spook a couple posts back regarding my view on where responsibility for the starvation deaths should be placed. As I said to spook, I do not dispute that some may take the view that those child hostages were really “killed” by the UN, and not by Saddam (just as any hostages could be said to be “killed by” authorities who refuse to give in to the demands of hostage-takers). I do understand that view. I just don’t personally agree with it. :idunno:

Regarding your quote on the “more lives ultimately saved” issue – I basically agree with you (and the quote) that the most meaningful comparison would be present Iraq vs. a counterfactual Baathist-Iraq in 2005. I just don’t have access to those numbers. Nobody does. Oh well. Leaves plenty of open room for debate. I’m under no illusions that we’re all going to agree on any given set of figures. (Doubt you are under that illusion either :wink:)

Cheers,

but you do acknowledge that the sanctions began years before oil for food, no? this would make your analogy (not a valid form of argument) even weaker.

always a pleasure, hobbes.
peace

So sb:

I understand you (Iraq Watch) to say that if a person murders 1,000 people 20 years ago, he should not be eventually put on trial because he is only murdering two or three now. Is my understanding of Iraq Watch’s reply correct? So because of the lower numbers, the pattern of abuse, the increasing intolerance of that abuse is not acceptable because the abuse was worse before. Action can only be taken, therefore, when abuse is accelerating?

Then, this was never the major factor. It was about defanging Saddam once and for all. He was a threat. He was not cooperating. We did not know what he had. It was his obligation by treaty to prove he was complying he did not. The democratization and humanitarian aspects are also variables that made the final decision an easier one for Bush and others including me. Hurray. 95 percent of Kurds said they are happy Saddam is gone. (The other 5 percent must have chosen to not reply to the poll). 87 percent of Shias said the same. EVEN 23 percent of Sunnis agreed that Iraq was better off without Saddam. In that poll the remaining 77 percent did not necessarily agree that it was better under Saddam, the answers also included don’t know, no opinion, and were left blank.

Hobbes,

I think Ruby Ridge would be a better analogy – not least because it’s a real life example of the U.S. Government in action during the same time period.

A white supremacist suspected of weapons violations is surrounded by federal agents so intent on his capture because they regard him as a menace to society that they recklessly kill his wife, son and dog instead. Later, they try to blame him for the deaths of everyone who died at Ruby Ridge but a jury decides otherwise.

Eventually the white supremacist is found not guilty of the original weapons charges and none of the people who actually fired the bullets are prosecuted.

[quote=“spook”]Hobbes,

I think Ruby Ridge would be a better analogy – not least because it’s a real life example of the U.S. Government in action during the same time period.

A white supremacist suspected of weapons violations is surrounded by federal agents so intent on his capture because they regard him as a menace to society that they recklessly kill his wife, son and dog instead. Later, they try to blame him for the deaths of everyone who died at Ruby Ridge but a jury decides otherwise.

Eventually the white supremacist is found not guilty of the original weapons charges and none of the people who actually fired the bullets are prosecuted.[/quote]

Nah, spook. I’ve already explained why this analogy fails.

Saddam was on parole or on probation… take your pick. And he did have WMD at one point in time and he did claim to have them still.

[quote=“fred smith”]So sb:

I understand you (Iraq Watch) to say that if a person murders 1,000 people 20 years ago, he should not be eventually put on trial because he is only murdering two or three now. Is my understanding of Iraq Watch’s reply correct? So because of the lower numbers, the pattern of abuse, the increasing intolerance of that abuse is not acceptable because the abuse was worse before. Action can only be taken, therefore, when abuse is accelerating?[/quote]

As far as what I think, I wasn’t aware that the US was trying to bring Saddam to trial. Does that mean that the ICC issued a warrant and that the US was simply executing it? No, it doesn’t.

Had an arrest warrant been issued to bring Saddam before a court of justice, I would have supported the action. I truly hope courts of law get a chance to look at this whole issue.

As far as what the IBC means, I can’t speak for them so read it again see if it helps.

First of all this is not a criminal matter but one of defense. Only the Europeans delude themselves into thinking that their dialogue achieves anything. By the way, how is the EU effort working in Iran? Three years and counting? Yawn.

Second, the US can do whatever it wants. That may sound ugly but it is true and it is a truth that many nations in Europe frequently avail themselves of whenever it suits them. Sorry, but until peace from heaven comes down that is a fact and I for one have seen nothing in the UN (corruption) or the EU approach to make me want to transfer sovereignty to some world body. Apparently, neither do the Dutch or French haha.

Third, it was the US who kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. It was US strength that got him to agree to a ceasefire and it ultimately would be US strength that would be used to remove him as we did. Why oh why then must we listen to some dysfunctional corrupt bureaucrats on the take tell us what we can or cannot do to act in our national interests? I would argue that US interests also coincide with those of the civilized world. Anyone here care to disagree?

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“spook”]Hobbes,

I think Ruby Ridge would be a better analogy – not least because it’s a real life example of the U.S. Government in action during the same time period.

A white supremacist suspected of weapons violations is surrounded by federal agents so intent on his capture because they regard him as a menace to society that they recklessly kill his wife, son and dog instead. Later, they try to blame him for the deaths of everyone who died at Ruby Ridge but a jury decides otherwise.

Eventually the white supremacist is found not guilty of the original weapons charges and none of the people who actually fired the bullets are prosecuted.[/quote]

Nah, spook. I’ve already explained why this analogy fails.

Saddam was on parole or on probation… take your pick. And he did have WMD at one point in time and he did claim to have them still.[/quote]

Okay, I’ll go with that:

A white supremacist parolee suspected of weapons violations is surrounded by federal agents so intent on his capture because they consider him armed and dangerous that they recklessly kill his wife, son and dog instead. Later, they blame him for the deaths but a jury decides otherwise, pointing their fingers at the over zealous federal agents instead.

Eventually the white supremacist parolee is found not guilty of the original weapons charges and none of the people who actually fired the bullets are prosecuted.

[quote=“spook”]Okay, I’ll go with that:

A white supremacist parolee suspected of weapons violations is surrounded by federal agents so intent on his capture because they consider him armed and dangerous that they recklessly kill his wife, son and dog instead. Later, they blame him for the deaths but a jury decides otherwise, pointing their fingers at the over zealous federal agents instead.

Eventually the white supremacist parolee is found not guilty of the original weapons charges and none of the people who actually fired the bullets are prosecuted.[/quote]

You can always count on spook to be a good sport :laughing:

Okay, how about this wrinkle, spook: What if instead of killing the guy’s wife, son and dog, the authorities instead didn’t kill them, but rather let them live and specifically went after the parolee instead? And how about instead of killing the parolee, they just arrested him instead and put him on trial for what he’d done? And how about instead of blame or fingerpointing in the aftermath the federal agents showered the guy’s homestead with federal cash, and reconstruction workers arrived (paid for by the feds) to make the place better than it was before they came.

So the end result was that instead of living a life of terrified beatings and misery under the parolee’s thumb (it turns out he was a pretty disgusting character – they found lots of mass graves as they were reconstructing the place) the family was instead allowed to elect their own ‘family government’, and were given support and ecouragement for them to build a better life free of the parolee who they all feared and hated?

That change your thoughts on the event at all?

Probably not. I know that for you there is something of a non-interference principle involved (stating that the feds had no right to interfere in what this guy was doing to his helpless family). But it certainly makes the analogy a little more apt when it comes to the question of whether the intervention was a net positive or negative for those involved.

That is actually the very (limited) extent of the suggestion I’ve been making today you know: that the Iraqis are quite clearly better off (even if you use the “worse case scenario” numbers, as I did above). I share some of your and MFGR’s an whoever-else’s cynicism about the motives (although I don’t go in for the aliens/JFK assassination/it-was-all-about-oil conspiracy theory stuff) behind the action in Iraq. I also share in the frustrations of Andrew Sullivan and others who supported the war but disagreed with many of the specific policies/actions that were taken during and after. In my mind these are all legitimate reasons to have concerns. I also think that you and others who think that one nation shouldn’t involve itself outside its own borders have a defensible point of view – even if I don’t share it.

But the criticism that somehow the liberation of Iraq “killed Iraqis” (on net), or that any of the anti-war crowd can somehow cloak their objections under the guise of concern for the Iraqi people … that’s the one argument that just doesn’t pass the laugh test. There are enough legitimate reasons for objecting to the war without resorting to patently false or deceitful ones. If you objected to the war then fine, but don’t try and claim that concern for human life or the condition of the Iraqi people fall on your side of the argument. :idunno:

It was not a case of mere suspicion. Saddam did have WMD and he was convicted of illegal possession thereof and he claimed to have WMD at the time he agreed to dispose of the same and to give an immediate accounting of the same… Analogy fails right away.

Certainly. And why should they not have considered that?

I think we can say that notwithstanding a certain number of mistakes, as will always happen in war, the US and British effort to spare innocents and their consequent restraint was admirable and cannot reasonably be characterized as “reckless”. Analogy fails.

I think Saddam was responsible for the deaths.

Analogy fails miserably.

Saddam was already convicted of illegal WMD possession. He was in violation of his parole obligations, which were to account for the disposal of his stocks of WMD, which he claimed to possess and or was otherwise known to have possessed. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that he did dispose of his WMD, he still failed to uphold his parole obligations by failing to immediately account for such disposal.

Tigerman! Down boy. Heel. Heel!

The context here is where the moral responsibility lies for the 500,000 children said to have died of disease and malnutrition during the sanctions era in Iraq.

My view is that while I expect Saddam will rot in hell for the callous role he played in the genocide of Iraqi children in the 1990’s, the U.S. government officials who placed their animosity for Saddam above their regard for human life may well be in for an unpleasant surprise when they themselves have to face final judgement for their actions, just as the FBI was surprised to find itself on the defensive when it went before a jury of average, decent people in rural Idaho expecting to make all the accusations.

Ruby Ridge to me is a microcosm of the attitude of the Federal government in general these days towards those innocents who get in the way of its increasingly partisan agendas. God help you if you get caught between them and Randy Weaver or Saddam Hussein because you’re nothing but “collateral damage” to them any more and don’t expect them to show the slightest sense of responsible for their actions.

[quote=“fred smith”]Spook:

[snip]
I also believe that we are winning.
[snip] When Syria is out of the picture, then we have a lot more time and attention for Iran. Either we contain it or we move to actively encourage a revolt but let’s not pretend that this is not a regional war.
[snip] This is not about Afghanistan or Iraq but reshaping the entire Middle East.
[snip] that is what is needed if we are going to defeat this terrorist threat once and for all.
[snip].[/quote]

Fred, it sounds like you’re playing a game of Risk (anyone remember that board game?). Which is what your post makes it sound like. Taking out Syria and then moving on to Iran, that entails a great loss of life. Innocent civilian life. There’s got to be other ways to make the world safe from terror. And another thing, do you really think that OIL has nothing to do with this? This war is NOT all about democracy, and making the world safe from terrorists. Rather it is more about U.S. Interests, read OIL, and securing those from the terrorists. For example, look at the country of Venezuela. It is a country with a DEMOCRACTICALLY elected President - why did Bush support a coup there? OIL - OIL - OIL - OIL -OIL

WAKE UP!

Bodo

The solution is simple for where the blame lies in this case, and is staring you in the face: the Kurds were under the same sanctions, but instead of 500,000 children dying they had elections and amusement parks and female judges and the like. Why?

Because they weren’t living under Saddam, but under the protection of the US and Brit armies in the no-fly zone.

"The (U.S.) State Department claims that lower child mortality in Iraqi Kurdistan is proof that problems are caused by Saddam Hussein, not sanctions But the embargo in the North is not the “same embargo” as they claim. The North enjoys porous borders with Turkey, Syria, and Iran, and thus is effectively less embargoed than the rest of the country. It benefits from the aid of 34 Non-Government Organizations, while in the whole rest of the country there are only 11. It receives 22% more per capita from the Oil for Food program, and gets about 10% of all UN-controlled assistance in currency, while the rest of the country receives only commodities. Food, medicine, and water pumps are now helping reduce mortality throughout Iraq, but the pumps do less for sanitation where authorities cannot buy sand, hire day laborers, or find many other minor inputs to make filtration plants work.

Goods have been approved by the UN and distributed to the North far faster than in the Center or South. The UN Security Council treats people in that part of the country like innocents. Close to 20 million civilians in the Center and South of the country deserve the same treatment. (U.S. State Department) Spokesman James P. Rubin said that “We can’t solve a problem that is the result of tyrannical behavior.” He probably was referring to Saddam Hussein. As one involved in providing assistance throughout Iraq, I must admit that the arbitrary, ineffective, or destructive control sometimes exercised by the Security Council over Iraqi funds for food and medicine seem no less tyrannical. A good faith effort to meet basic needs in Iraq would create a better basis to negotiate an end to the Iraq conflict. Instead, every problem is blamed on Saddam. This politicization of the Oil for Food program only delays and weakens our ability to address the urgent humanitarian needs created by this most comprehensive embargo of the 20th century."

Prof. Richard Garfield (an epidemiologist at Columbia University)
August, 1999

Looks like people are starting to find some common ground here. Even spook is now posting quotes admitting that the corrupt Saddam-UN partnership was primarily responsible for the lack of aid received by those who needed it in areas in the south.

It’s interesting to note the date on that quote (1999). In hindsight, of course, it is not surprising to find that UN aid was actually getting to the people that needed it in in the north, while in the south the aid was being embezzled by Saddam and his corrupt partners at the UN.

Back in 1999, though, it was apparently less obvious what was happening. And so we get the good Dr. Garfield voicing what appears to be genuine frustration and confusion about why it is that:[color=black] “Goods have been approved by the UN and distributed to the North far faster than in the Center or South.”[/color] :ponder: You can almost see the gears turning in an attempt to figure out what could be happening to that aid that was supposed to be getting approved and sent. “Gee, and I also wonder why it is that the UN gives the Kurdish areas cash, while the south gets no cash.” (not realizing, of course, that the cash that should have gone to the south was just going directly into Swiss bank accounts to save time)

Unfortunately, this “mystery” of the disappearing humanitarian aid (or perhaps more often the aid that was simply never sent in the first place, but rather went straight into the bank accounts of the Baathists or the corrupt UN officials involved in the scandal) is only being brought to light now. Too late for many Iraqis unfortunate enough to live in the Saddam-controlled regions.

Oh well. At least he’s gone now. And hopefully many of the bribe-takers involved in the UN scandal will eventually get punished as well – they can’t all have been as clever about covering their tracks as Galloway was. :wink: