Why the Left is wrong on Saddam (The Observer)

[Gibsie]

I'm going to assume paiktis22 is exaggerating his figures 10-fold to make his point better, so I'll take a figure of 50,000 innocent Iraqis killed if action is taken against the country. Now, given that thousands supposedly die every year/month/week due to sanctions (depending upon who you listen to), I have no problem with a war against Iraq that will result in sanctions being lifted.

[Bereta_Eder]

100.000 from gun fire
400.000 from deseases associated with the war.

Official survey.
Surprised you haven't heard of it.

Also killing 50.000 (as you say out of the blue) to "save" the rest?

What kind of saving are we talking about?
Democracy prosperity and free will of the Iraqi people vis a vis the US after the deaths and the instalation of a pupet regime in Bagdat?
I think not.

[Bereta_Eder]

Also thousands of Iraqi children have died through the years due to the sanctions. And these deaths were and are cynically welcomed by the US and its supporters as "means" of pressuring Iraq
(these deaths were completely easy to avoid, even if the sanctions were kept in place)

[CerberusIV]

Strange how he doesn't mention Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is allegedly allowing several hundred thousand of his citizens to starve to death. Presumably wars in the ME are news and sell papers whilst people quietly starving in africa aren't and don't.

[RGBVideo]

Strange how he doesn't mention Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is allegedly allowing several hundred thousand of his citizens to starve to death. Presumably wars in the ME are news and sell papers whilst people quietly starving in africa aren't and don't.

Oh, so now it's mediasexy to blame Robert Mugabe?

I would like to notify that BBC is very highly biased on this issue.

[RGBVideo]

About the article:

Absolute BS. It's basically referring to 2 genocides, where side x attacked against side y.
I fail to see what is mutual.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Also thousands of Iraqi children have died through the years due to the sanctions. And these deaths were and are cynically welcomed by the US and its supporters as "means" of pressuring Iraq
(these deaths were completely easy to avoid, even if the sanctions were kept in place)

That's the point: "they" say a million kids have died from the sanctions in the last decade, but getting rid of Saddam would get rid of the sanctions.

[Bereta_Eder]

"They" can say whatever they want. Official independent surveys also place the deaths of children in the 500.000 range due to lack of medication and other basic needs.

Now another 500.000 civilians will die in order to lift these sanctions? That's not liberation (conveniently thought up after 11 Spet. whereas the status quo in Iraq was in place for decades), that's massacre.

And for oil. Not for the well fare of the Iraqis. Also allow me to question wether the aftermath will be so much better.

Even in Yugoslavia, the bomings did not uster Milosevic.
The people themsleves ousted him after months of the bombings, on their own and the country took its course.

Why this bloodlust on Iraq whereas other parts of the word are either far more threatening and dangerous and/or far more in the pitts.

[mactbone]

Paiktiss - drop the 's', "decade" not "decades"

Also, if the US really wanted oil, why don't we just say Kuwait is funding terrorists, or Iran is, or the Saudis are? If all we wanted was oil, why haven't we opened up ANWAR yet?

No decision is made with only one factor a consideration, there always mitigating factors.

Personally, you'd do a lot better if you'd claim that this war was about installing a pro-US regime. Even then, I think it's more about real-politik than anything else. If it's in our best interest to have countries support us, why not take measures, so that the country supports us.

Your figure of 500,000 is probably off-base for the simple reason that you include diseases. How can every disease related death be the fault of a war? Is a death by disease directly related to the war? Did troops infect people with diseases? Speaking of odd ways of gathering statistics - ever wonder why they cite children specifically? If 500,000people die it's a bad thing, but 500,000 children! Why, we have to take measures to stop this tragedy! It's another political ploy for sympathy.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No war. Talk of war is hurting the economy already as it is.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
No war. Talk of war is hurting the economy already as it is.

Think so? I thought just the opposite. I don't know why people would stop spending just because the war, unless there was inflation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Your figure of 500,000 is probably off-base for the simple reason that you include diseases. How can every disease related death be the fault of a war? Is a death by disease directly related to the war? Did troops infect people with diseases? Speaking of odd ways of gathering statistics - ever wonder why they cite children specifically? If 500,000people die it's a bad thing, but 500,000 children! Why, we have to take measures to stop this tragedy! It's another political ploy for sympathy.

The assumption, based on the 1991 Iraq air campaign, and the 1999 Yugoslav campaign, seems to be that we will take out electrical generation, with major negative consequences for hospitals, water supply, etc.

What this ignores is that in this case we are attempting to occupy and rebuild Iraq. We are likely going to do everything possible to avoid damage to critical civilian infrastructure, including power plants. To damage them would be harmful to our long term strategy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Think so? I thought just the opposite. I don't know why people would stop spending just because the war, unless there was inflation.

Because they're nervous about the effect it will have on the economy. In the post-modern world, wars cause economies to contract. You're taking hundreds of thousands of producers and consumers out of the US, oil prices rise, etc.

This Obersver article is crap, but Gibsie makes what seems to be an excellent point. If we assume that the sanctionsare causing the level of death in Iraq that we've been given, 1 million, approximately 100,000 a year. Then killing 50,000 in an invasion would be a mercy.

Of course, that's like saying it would be better for a parent to kill their kid outright instead of beating him for ten years. We're the ones doing the starving, so we could stop the deaths simply by switching to smart sanctions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What this ignores is that in this case we are attempting to occupy and rebuild Iraq. We are likely going to do everything possible to avoid damage to critical civilian infrastructure, including power plants. To damage them would be harmful to our long term strategy.

Think Kosovo. Don't you feel silly now?