| |
Dave I have provided support for my argument. I have never said that I think
500,000 have died due to sanctions. Never. I disagree with Larry when he
says none have died. I think a great deal have, but I have no idea how many.
That is my argument. I have supported it with references (see bottom half of
text):
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13329
Are you disagreeing with my argument. Or do you agree with Larry:
"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."
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Which part of the following doesn't seem like Larry's answer?
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party
> > opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If
> > it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be
> > able to substantiate his opinion. If he has some understanding of this
> > field, he should be able to substantiate his opinion. If he is just being
> > obtuse, he may not be able to.
>
> It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of
> international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the
> dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination
> (which Larry has given) of the relevant data.
> First: On what basis do we determine that 500K children have died? Are
> there organized census programs in Iraq to account for these children? Are
> the bereaved parents filing reports with local officials for each lost
> child? Is some agency performing a body count? In short, it's not
> sufficient to claim that 500K children have died without supporting the
> claim with information about how the number was determined; we cannot be
> expected to accept that number (horrific if true, I grant you) on faith
> alone, which is what we are being asked to do.
> Second: IF we accept that 500K children have died, it is imperative to
> identify why these children have died. Do factors internal to Iraq prevent
> food from being distributed to the populace? Is disease, due to poor
> sanitation or environmental elements, a possible factor? As Larry has
> pointed out, the sanctions do not stop food from entering the country, so if
> that food is not being distributed to the masses, that's hardly the fault of
> the US.
> Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
> they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
> blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
> Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
> It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
> chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
> programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
> the expense of those citizens. As such, the "fault" for the continued
> deaths of children lies with the person most readily able to prevent them;
> ie: Hussein.
>
> Therefore, Larry's assertion is absolutely not "100% opinion on his part"
> but is instead a conclusion reached by appropriate examination of the data.
> Inconsistencies within those data (or how they are presented) are
> self-evident, so one can hardly be faulted for pointing out such
> shortcomings. Even if further evidence proves the data to be correct, it is
> premature to accept them in the absence of such evidence. In addition,
> conclusions based solely upon faulty data will themselves naturally be
> faulty, so I fail to understand why the identification of such faults is a
> problem.
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination (which Larry has given) of the (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
