AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busines

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Red7227

Banhammered
Oct 8, 2011
2,268
5,117
0
Melbourne Australia
UK says its unacceptable for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. Syrians say what chemical weapons? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

Is the UK so rich, and so bored, that they can't think of anything better to do than attack another sovereign state for something that hasn't even been proved yet? When will the West learn to fuck off and mind its own business.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

People already gathered on Downing Street to protest against another invasion.

Apparently the "evidence" about chemical weapons came from Israel. Starting a war again based on a rumor appeals to a lot of people, there's money to be made on the aftermath.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... mical-talk

Iraq was bombed back to the stone age for less evidence of chemical weapons.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
UK says its unacceptable for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. Syrians say what chemical weapons? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

Is the UK so rich, and so bored, that they can't think of anything better to do than attack another sovereign state for something that hasn't even been proved yet? When will the West learn to fuck off and mind its own business.

Why limit it to the UK? The US is the one that will really push for something to happen. Our credibility, such that it is after Iraq, is on the line. The president stated that the use of chemical weapons was a "redline" not to be crossed without repercussions. On one hand I agree. Just allowing the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is probably not something anyone, east or west, wants to have happening. On the other hand, I do not really understand why chemical weapons are the "scary" thing when just normal warfare has caused thousands of more deaths than this possible chemical attack. Personally being shot or blown up doesn't seem a lesser death than dying to chemical weapons.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Just Me said:
Red7227 said:
UK says its unacceptable for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. Syrians say what chemical weapons? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

Is the UK so rich, and so bored, that they can't think of anything better to do than attack another sovereign state for something that hasn't even been proved yet? When will the West learn to fuck off and mind its own business.

Why limit it to the UK? The US is the one that will really push for something to happen. Our credibility, such that it is after Iraq, is on the line. The president stated that the use of chemical weapons was a "redline" not to be crossed without repercussions. On one hand I agree. Just allowing the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is probably not something anyone, east or west, wants to have happening. On the other hand, I do not really understand why chemical weapons are the "scary" thing when just normal warfare has caused thousands of more deaths than this possible chemical attack. Personally being shot or blown up doesn't seem a lesser death than dying to chemical weapons.
Oh I think we've given up questioning the US motives, the UK might still have a chance to repent.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Just Me said:
The president stated that the use of chemical weapons was a "redline" not to be crossed without repercussions. On one hand I agree. Just allowing the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is probably not something anyone, east or west, wants to have happening.


If its just a bunch of arabs murdering another bunch of arabs, who cares? They are 10,000 kms away. And if it turns out to be the freedom loving terrorists rather than the government, what will thew UK do then, start bombing refugee camps? There is no right and wrong in any of these arab conflicts as both sides are douchbags.

And no one expects any better from the US. Given the way the US hysterically over reacts, I look forward to some group or other actually managing to set off a nuke there. It will end up making the old USSR look like a freedom loving utopia.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Just Me said:
Red7227 said:
UK says its unacceptable for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. Syrians say what chemical weapons? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

Is the UK so rich, and so bored, that they can't think of anything better to do than attack another sovereign state for something that hasn't even been proved yet? When will the West learn to fuck off and mind its own business.

Why limit it to the UK? The US is the one that will really push for something to happen. Our credibility, such that it is after Iraq, is on the line. The president stated that the use of chemical weapons was a "redline" not to be crossed without repercussions. On one hand I agree. Just allowing the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is probably not something anyone, east or west, wants to have happening. On the other hand, I do not really understand why chemical weapons are the "scary" thing when just normal warfare has caused thousands of more deaths than this possible chemical attack. Personally being shot or blown up doesn't seem a lesser death than dying to chemical weapons.

Yes, I get to post this comic I saw the other day.
 

Attachments

  • syria.png
    syria.png
    57.5 KB · Views: 226
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Obama needs to sack up and tell Russia to deal with the problem. Their ally, their responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red7227
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

*sigh* I get so tired of hearing the bickering of international politics, and this was the one place I was hoping to avoid it.

Please don't generalize the "west." I'm from the United States, and I'm tired of sending my friends and my friends' children all over the place because those fat fucks in D. C. think the U. S. military is the World Police Force. Yes, we pommelled Afghanistan. Yes, we flattened Iraq. What did we get? Two nonfunctional states that will cost us billions of dollars, and two populations that don't even like us that much. Bulldozing Syria would be more of the same. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Aw, forget it. I'm going to see who's on MFC this afternoon.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

CallMeWilliam said:
bawksy said:
Obama needs to sack up and tell Russia to deal with the problem. Their ally, their responsibility.
They (Russia) wont because of the reasons here which as much as I loath CNN at times they hit the nail on the head with this post.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/mea ... upporters/

All perfectly reasonable. Why the US feels the need to waste its money and murder its children on behalf of a bunch of rampant donkey fuckers is beyond me. Leave it to its own devices.

What is criminally irresponsible, and why every US president for the last 30 years should be hung, is the creation of the professional international terrorists that operate in all of these destabilised arab nations. Remember "die hard" there were no terrorists when that movie was made, they had to invent a bunch of german bank robber terrorists instead. The world is now awash in terrorists thanks the the irresponsible foreign policy of the West. I remember posting in a thread in 2002 that the only way for the US to leave iraq and end the conflict there would have been to send tony blair, john howard and george bush to Baghdad and publicly hang them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

druwood said:
*sigh* I get so tired of hearing the bickering of international politics, and this was the one place I was hoping to avoid it.

Please don't generalize the "west." I'm from the United States, and I'm tired of sending my friends and my friends' children all over the place because those fat fucks in D. C. think the U. S. military is the World Police Force. Yes, we pommelled Afghanistan. Yes, we flattened Iraq. What did we get? Two nonfunctional states that will cost us billions of dollars, and two populations that don't even like us that much. Bulldozing Syria would be more of the same. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Aw, forget it. I'm going to see who's on MFC this afternoon.


Hey, this thread is because all the whiners in the Miley Cyrus thread thought we should be talking about something important. I think her tongue disability and non-existent ass is far more important to me that a bunch of Syrians getting blown up, but I am happy to provide a venue for complaint.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
druwood said:
*sigh* I get so tired of hearing the bickering of international politics, and this was the one place I was hoping to avoid it.

Please don't generalize the "west." I'm from the United States, and I'm tired of sending my friends and my friends' children all over the place because those fat fucks in D. C. think the U. S. military is the World Police Force. Yes, we pommelled Afghanistan. Yes, we flattened Iraq. What did we get? Two nonfunctional states that will cost us billions of dollars, and two populations that don't even like us that much. Bulldozing Syria would be more of the same. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Aw, forget it. I'm going to see who's on MFC this afternoon.


Hey, this thread is because all the whiners in the Miley Cyrus thread thought we should be talking about something important. I think her tongue disability and non-existent ass is far more important to me that a bunch of Syrians getting blown up, but I am happy to provide a venue for complaint.

Actually Amber is providing the venue, you are just providing the complaining part. But do carry on with your US bashing as I find it quite amusing.
:lol:
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

As a non-US poster who sometimes criticizes the US during the course of giving my opinion...I'd just like to point out that anytime I say 'the US' or 'America' or suchlike, what I'm actually referring to is 'the US administration', the 'American govt', and so forth. Not the people, not average Americans both good, bad and inbetween - and while I cant speak for others I think generally when you're discussing international political shit, referring to a country generally means referring to their govt.

My only point would be, I like Americans, but sometimes I don't like the actions of your govt., and as the US is the senior party in NATO and the 'coalition of the willing', those actions totally affect Australians.

I think if our countries are in alliance and one is in the role of leading others into war...then I think absolutely the population of those allied countries should get to have a say :)
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

From CNN:
Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.

Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.

Those two statements at least, I'm not sure I can disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Jupiter551 said:
From CNN:
Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.

Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.

Those two statements at least, I'm not sure I can disagree with.

I can most definitely disagree with the first point, at least in part. For the U.S.' role in Iraq, yes, we fucked shit up and destabilized the region for no good reason. It should be held up and long remembered as an embarrassing black spot in
the history of our foreign relations, even if it did depose a despot (which this nation had done plenty of work to install in the first place.) However, as far as the Arab Spring goes, if we're to believe that this was an organic revolution -- or at least as organic as they come these days -- then it is going to take far longer than a couple of years to really settle down, and I really doubt that we'll be able to judge the outcome of what has happened over these last few years until maybe even a decade or two down the road. The fall of the Soviet Union was over 20 years ago now, and we're still seeing the social and political fallout of that. This stuff is not lightning quick, but regime change and revolution certainly can result in stability and democracy over the long run (just as much as it can result in hellholes governed by monsters.)

This isn't a defense of Western intervention, mind you, but Russia definitely has its own agenda.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

zippypinhead said:
However, as far as the Arab Spring goes, if we're to believe that this was an organic revolution -- or at least as organic as they come these days -- then it is going to take far longer than a couple of years to really settle down, and I really doubt that we'll be able to judge the outcome of what has happened over these last few years until maybe even a decade or two down the road. The fall of the Soviet Union was over 20 years ago now, and we're still seeing the social and political fallout of that. This stuff is not lightning quick, but regime change and revolution certainly can result in stability and democracy over the long run (just as much as it can result in hellholes governed by monsters.)

This isn't a defense of Western intervention, mind you, but Russia definitely has its own agenda.

Saddam was far from the worst despot and the reason for attacking him was farcical. He was doing far more good than hard for the region and deposing him has only pushed back Iraq 50 years. People might have the right to vote, but all they can vote for is religious nutbags. Same thing in Tunisia, and if it goes their way, Syria. Egypt is on the backlash now against the muslim brotherhood, but that will only lead to a state of permanent insurgency with a more or less secular government and islamic extremists in and out of the government demanding more power and adherence to sharia law. That is about as good as can be hoped for with Saudi Arabia funding resistance to any form of democracy in the middle east.

Its all the West's fault. They established all these kingdoms in the middle east when they could have been making democracies. All of the protectorates and mandated territories the West inherited in the wake of the collapse of the ottoman empire could have been the start of a bright secular middle east like Turkey and Iraq have been until recently. Instead they were given to petty despots for the most part because its easier to bribe a despot than it is to influence a democratic government.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
zippypinhead said:
However, as far as the Arab Spring goes, if we're to believe that this was an organic revolution -- or at least as organic as they come these days -- then it is going to take far longer than a couple of years to really settle down, and I really doubt that we'll be able to judge the outcome of what has happened over these last few years until maybe even a decade or two down the road. The fall of the Soviet Union was over 20 years ago now, and we're still seeing the social and political fallout of that. This stuff is not lightning quick, but regime change and revolution certainly can result in stability and democracy over the long run (just as much as it can result in hellholes governed by monsters.)

This isn't a defense of Western intervention, mind you, but Russia definitely has its own agenda.

Saddam was far from the worst despot and the reason for attacking him was farcical. He was doing far more good than hard for the region and deposing him has only pushed back Iraq 50 years.

I am going to stay out of debating on cam model forum about serious foreign policy issues. But this statement is utter and complete BS. When Saddam Hussein when went to well deserve death in 2006, he was responsible for more violent deaths than anyone walking the face of the planet. He was responsible for between 1,300,000 to 1,800,000 violent deaths during his 25 years in power, putting him either right behind or right ahead of Pol Po in the list of worse modern day butchers. He was also indirectly responsible for several hundred thousand death of young children. You claim he was far from the worst so name two.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

HiGirlsRHot said:
Red7227 said:
zippypinhead said:
However, as far as the Arab Spring goes, if we're to believe that this was an organic revolution -- or at least as organic as they come these days -- then it is going to take far longer than a couple of years to really settle down, and I really doubt that we'll be able to judge the outcome of what has happened over these last few years until maybe even a decade or two down the road. The fall of the Soviet Union was over 20 years ago now, and we're still seeing the social and political fallout of that. This stuff is not lightning quick, but regime change and revolution certainly can result in stability and democracy over the long run (just as much as it can result in hellholes governed by monsters.)

This isn't a defense of Western intervention, mind you, but Russia definitely has its own agenda.

Saddam was far from the worst despot and the reason for attacking him was farcical. He was doing far more good than hard for the region and deposing him has only pushed back Iraq 50 years.

I am going to stay out of debating on cam model forum about serious foreign policy issues. But this statement is utter and complete BS. When Saddam Hussein when went to well deserve death in 2006, he was responsible for more violent deaths than anyone walking the face of the planet. He was responsible for between 1,300,000 to 1,800,000 violent deaths during his 25 years in power, putting him either right behind or right ahead of Pol Po in the list of worse modern day butchers. He was also indirectly responsible for several hundred thousand death of young children. You claim he was far from the worst so name two.


That's really funny, because those deaths were directly linked to the embargoes imposed by the West.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

CallMeWilliam said:
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?


I blame Kanye.
 

Attachments

  • kanye.jpg
    kanye.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 124
  • Like
Reactions: Jupiter551 and Rose
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

CallMeWilliam said:
Red7227 said:
Its all the West's fault.
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?

Mostly the UK as far as creating as far as the creation of the gulf states, though the US and France contributed. The embargo that killed millions of people when Iraq could not import any medical or humanitarian aid from 1990 to 2003 was entirely the US.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

bawksy said:
CallMeWilliam said:
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?


I blame Kanye.
No lies, this made me laugh pretty hard. :shifty:
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
CallMeWilliam said:
Red7227 said:
Its all the West's fault.
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?

Mostly the UK as far as creating as far as the creation of the gulf states, though the US and France contributed. The embargo that killed millions of people when Iraq could not import any medical or humanitarian aid from 1990 to 2003 was entirely the US.

From your wiki link:
The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[5]

Also, the embargo was not entirely the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661
The resolution was adopted by 13 votes to none, while Cuba and Yemen abstained from voting.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Just Me said:
Red7227 said:
CallMeWilliam said:
Red7227 said:
Its all the West's fault.
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?

Mostly the UK as far as creating as far as the creation of the gulf states, though the US and France contributed. The embargo that killed millions of people when Iraq could not import any medical or humanitarian aid from 1990 to 2003 was entirely the US.

From your wiki link:
The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[5]

Also, the embargo was not entirely the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661
The resolution was adopted by 13 votes to none, while Cuba and Yemen abstained from voting.

Did you read the process for importing food and medical supplies or the number of people who died because no one ever managed to import anything? Pretend as much as you like but the article and the attached sources make it very clear who was responsible for those millions of deaths.

Edit, the relevant part of the article you seem to have missed.

Effects on the Iraqi people during sanctions[edit source | editbeta]

High rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water were reported during sanctions.[27] In 2001, the chairman of the Iraqi Medical Association's scientific committee sent a plea to the BMJ to help it raise awareness of the disastrous effects the sanctions were having on the Iraqi healthcare system.[28]
The modern Iraqi economy had been highly dependent on oil exports; in 1989, the oil sector comprised 61% of the GNP. A drawback of this dependence was the narrowing of the economic base, with the agricultural sector rapidly declining in the 1970s. Some claim that, as a result, the post-1990 sanctions had a particularly devastating effect on Iraq’s economy and food security levels of the population.[29]
Shortly after the sanctions were imposed, the Iraqi government developed a system of free food rations consisting of 1000 calories per person/day or 40% of the daily requirements, on which an estimated 60% of the population relied for a vital part of their sustenance. With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food Programme in 1997, this situation gradually improved. In May 2000 a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhoea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000. Power shortages, lack of spare parts and insufficient technical know-how lead to the breakdown of many modern facilities.[29]
The overall literacy rate in Iraq had been 78% in 1977 and 87% for adult women by 1985, but declined rapidly since then.[citation needed] Between 1990 and 1998, over one fifth of Iraqi children stopped enrolling in school, consequently increasing the number of non-literates and losing all the gains made in the previous decade. The 1990s also saw a dramatic increase in child labor, from a virtually non-existent level in the 1980s.[citation needed] The per capita income in Iraq dropped from $3510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996, heavily influenced by the rapid devaluation of the Iraqi dinar.[29]
Iraq had been one of the few countries in the Middle East that invested in women’s education. But this situation changed from the late eighties on with increasing militarisation and a declining economic situation. Consequently the economic hardships and war casualties in the last decades have increased the number of women-headed households and working women.[29]
Researcher Richard Garfield estimated that "a minimum of 100,000 and a more likely estimate of 227,000 excess deaths among young children from August 1991 through March 1998" from all causes including sanctions.[8] Other estimates have put the number at 170,000 children.[23][30][31] UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said that
if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight-year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." [32]
Chlorine is commonly used to purify water, but because it can also be used to make poisonous chlorine gas, the sanctions regime included banning its manufacture under any conditions throughout Iraq and its import severely restricted.[33] [34] After inspecting Baghdad's facilities, David Sole, President of the Sanitary Chemists & Technicians Association, noting a high rates of diseases from lack of clean water followed the Gulf War and sanctions, recommended that liquid chlorine be sent to Iraq to disinfect water supplies.[35]
Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[36] However, Sophie Boukhari a UNESCO Courier journalist, reports that "some legal experts are skeptical about or even against using such terminology" and quotes Mario Bettati: "People who talk like that don’t know anything about law. The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide."[37]
Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy".[38] Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.[citation needed]
Estimates of deaths due to sanctions[edit source | editbeta]
Estimates of excess deaths during the sanctions vary widely, use different methodologies and cover different time-frames.[32][39][40] Some estimates include (some of them include effects of the Gulf War in the estimate):
Mohamed M. Ali, John Blacker, and Gareth Jones estimate between 400,000 and 500,000 excess under-5 deaths.[41]
UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." (As is customary, this report was based on a survey conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government and by local authorities in the provinces not controlled by the Iraqi government)[42]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[43]
"Probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20 October 2003[44]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[45]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",[46] and "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing an increase in child mortality was that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."[46]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[9] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[47]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[48] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[49]
Amatzia Baram, Director of the Center for Iraq Studies at the University of Haifa, reported almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent) and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting that the sanctions-related death rate is lower than reported, while also stating "Every child who suffers from malnutrition as a result of the embargo is a tragedy".[50]
Infant and child death rates[edit source | editbeta]


Iraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed.
A May 25, 2000 BBC article[51] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[52] The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[51] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation.
The Lancet publication[52] was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF[32] between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.[32]
In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy."[53]
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
CallMeWilliam said:
Red7227 said:
Its all the West's fault.
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?

Mostly the UK as far as creating as far as the creation of the gulf states, though the US and France contributed. The embargo that killed millions of people when Iraq could not import any medical or humanitarian aid from 1990 to 2003 was entirely the US.

Right all the US.. After all everybody knows that UN Security council is just a lapdog for the US and China, France and especially Russia always do the US bidding on the security council resolution. :lol: Iraq economic sanction were imposed by several UN security council resolution one of which IIRC was actually passed unanimously (normally Russia and/or China abstain).

Starting in the late 70s and all through the 1980s, the west imposed a variety of economic sanctions on South Africa due to is practice of apartheid . These sanction had severe economic impacts on the country. As result poor black Southern African lost their jobs and suffered greatly.

Using your logic we should blame the West for their suffering and not the South African government for maintaining apartheid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

HiGirlsRHot said:
Red7227 said:
CallMeWilliam said:
Red7227 said:
Its all the West's fault.
I would be interested in knowing your definition of the "West"?

Mostly the UK as far as creating as far as the creation of the gulf states, though the US and France contributed. The embargo that killed millions of people when Iraq could not import any medical or humanitarian aid from 1990 to 2003 was entirely the US.

Right all the US.. After all everybody knows that UN Security council is just a lapdog for the US and China, France and especially Russia always do the US bidding on the security council resolution. :lol: Iraq economic sanction were imposed by several UN security council resolution one of which IIRC was actually passed unanimously (normally Russia and/or China abstain).

Starting in the late 70s and all through the 1980s, the west imposed a variety of economic sanctions on South Africa due to is practice of apartheid . These sanction had severe economic impacts on the country. As result poor black Southern African lost their jobs and suffered greatly.

Using your logic we should blame the West for their suffering and not the South African government for maintaining apartheid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa

I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

Actually Saddam army was substantially larger than South Africas in both the 1st and 2nd Gulf war.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

HiGirlsRHot said:
Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

Actually Saddam army was substantially larger than South Africas in both the 1st and 2nd Gulf war.

And clearly impotent, given the 150 casualties the US took in both wars. If the US had stayed out of the middle east in 1990, then none of the last 30 years of terror and war and waste of money would have occurred. Kuwait would have benefited from the occupation if it was left alone, and the Saudi's and the rest of the middle east could have recovered Kuwait by themselves without dragging the rest of the world into it.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

The point being with this discussion that Saddam could avoided suffering of his people by complying with the UN resolutions. After many years of sanction South Africa eventually end apartheid. The sanctions were lifted, Mandela became President and South Africa is no longer a pariah nation. Even crazy Qaddafi managed to get most western sanctions lifted after he agreed to allow in weapons inspectors and give up his chemical and biological weapons.
Only Saddam and the crazy dear leaders of North Korea put up with decades of sanctions rather than change course, because they don't give a shit about their people.

Blaming the rest of the world for suffering caused by sanction is like blaming the justice system for having a kid grow up without a dad, because his dad killed a person and is locked up in jail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.