| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > ==+==
> > > In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
> > > national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
> > > had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
> > > very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
> > > worth it".
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Do you agree with her?
> >
> > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
> >
> > Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> > century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
> >
> > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > merely cited it again.
> >
> > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
>
> Agree with all that.
You don't agree with this then:
from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
==+==
EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
DIRECT EFFECTS
(immediate)
1. Decreased Imports
Medicines
Food Imports
Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts
Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts
Other spare parts
Fuel
Educational materials
Water Purification/supply inputs
==+==
Scott A
>
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let
> Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
> who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
> campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
> though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without storming
> Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
>
> ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Agree with all that. (...) Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
