It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqi deaths before the war

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You hear everyone moaning about the deaths of Iraqi civilans since the war but you dont hear anyone complain about how many lives it has SAVED.

The embargo was the cause of almost two million deaths

www.ilaam.net...

Those that are concerened about innocent people should be happy about the war, even NOW the Iraqis are better off than before.

I was against the war and still am but the arguement that they are worse off no as then doesnt seem to hold water

[edit on 28-10-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So you place an embargo which kills millions( an embargo that was a direct attack on innocent Iraqi's) then you bomb the people that are still alive. Now they are more safe? They can't walk the streets, go to the store, no working utilities in some places. Death all over. Sounds real safe to me. What ever helps America sleep at night I guess.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
How many of those two million died in the Iran/Iraq war ???



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
"How many of those two million died in the Iran/Iraq war ???"

umm huh? that war ended in 88, before the gulf war, it said they died between 91 and 03...



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
How many of those two million died in the Iran/Iraq war ???



This is just from the embargo not the war they died from disease mainly.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wask
So you place an embargo which kills millions( an embargo that was a direct attack on innocent Iraqi's) then you bomb the people that are still alive. .



At least TRY to blame the right people



The United Nations had imposed a comprehensive ban on trade with Iraq on August 6, 1990, under resolution 661, amounting to a complete siege on the country.
The UN placed the embargo not the USA so at least TRY to blame the right party.





[edit on 28-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Amuk the embargo in iraq was push by the US government. Yes US is as guilty as anyother country that agree with it.

I am sorry but I have to agree with Wask on this one first US kills millions with the embargo, and now US and coallition is killing the rest that survived Sadam cruelty, UN and US enforced embargo and the ivasion.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Amuk the embargo in iraq was push by the US government. Yes US is as guilty as anyother country that agree with it.
.


Did you read the part about the UN EMBARGO?

You know the one they imposed after half the countries in the middle east came crying to the UN about Saddam trying to take over the Middle east?

I am not trying to make Bush look like a Knight in shinning armor come to save the Iraqi people I am merely stating that MORE people died from the embargo and more would have died if it was kept up.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Amuk the embargo in iraq was push by the US government. Yes US is as guilty as anyother country that agree with it.

I am sorry but I have to agree with Wask on this one first US kills millions with the embargo, and now US and coallition is killing the rest that survived Sadam cruelty, UN and US enforced embargo and the ivasion.


no the UN proposed sanctions and asked clinton to help approve them, it wasnt the US who wrote the resolution, proposed it or anything.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well thanks for the clarification, we all know that the embargo that started after the Kuwait invasion has been enforced by the US and also US had expanded that embargo until 2003 when they finally lifted it after the US invasion.

Yes the UN is part of it, I do not disagree with that, but also the US made it worst with the expansion of it.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
it wasnt extended as it was not given a set time frame to begin with.

" Decides that the Security Council shall review the provisions of paragraph 20 above every sixty days in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council, for the purpose of determining whether to reduce or lift the prohibitions referred to therein;"


[edit on 28-10-2004 by namehere]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
So from the response I have got I guess it would have been better to let them all die from disease and starvation. The UN embargo killed TWO MILLION and the longer it went on the more it would have killed. If Sadam was such a wonderful leader shouldnt he have steped down to save his people?

I am not praising Bush hes a moron, but shouldnt we have to admit that the Embargo was MUCH worse than the war?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
No, I actually do agree with you. The UN sanctions coupled with the Food for Oil scandal was nothing more than a money grab at the expense of the Iraqi people. It is the larger tragedy in a series of tragedies inflicted on these people. They just can't get a break.

But I fear for the future of the country should it come to civil war. The Kurds have been quiet, but you know they are getting their ducks in a row so to speak. And can the Shia and Sunni factions ever live together other than by force?

I hope the sacrifice of the coalition and the Iraqi people does pay off in the end. It's the only hope in justifying the war. But moreover, yes, I would love to see the UN and every person involved in the food for oil debacle punished.

-



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The reason the kurds are very quiet and you do not hear about them is because they are conducting business as if they are an autonomous country, they are protecting their lands, they have a large able military group of 80.000 and they are waiting to see how the rest of Iraq develops into before they scream "autonomy" and then I wonder what the US is going to do.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I'm sure that invading their country, causing further casualties, economic collapse and general strife was the honorable thing to do. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq to help it's people it invaded Iraq to depose an "evil-doer" intent on harming America with it's WMD's.

Well, it turns out that there is no evidence of Iraq producing or possesing WMD's since the first Gulf war. It also turns out that Saddam had not apparent connections to the terrorists who committed the murders on 9/11, nor did he pose an imminent threat.

So, now you have the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton?/Carlyle? administration touting their honorable deed of invading Iraq to overthrow it's empire-seeking, tyrannical, extremist dictator to bring liberty, freedom and democracy to it's people. Excellent spin guys, excellent. That wasn't what happened! End of story! Saddam was an impotent figurehead (thanks to the U.S. and the U.N.) he wasn't a threat and he didn't have the means to be a threat. These are the facts!

If we really wanted to spread freedom, we would have helped Iraq regain economic freedom so it's people could fix the problems which have been plaguing them for the last 12 years. All the U.S. did was to help the U.N. tie Saddam's hands so he couldn't rebuild his country. Saddam stepping down wouldn't have changed anything, his noose was so tight, he couldn't have attempted an aggressive move without 20 or 30 countries coming down on him with their own WMD's.

Our DU rounds have been hurting innocent bystanders in Iraq for over a decade now. The most recent illegal invasion has cost the Iraqis a quarter of a million casualties! If that had happened on US soil, there would be one hell of an "Insurgent" militia roaming the streets trying to kill as many invaders as possible.

Once again, history has proven that war wasn't the answer. As Americans, we had the obligation to give the Iraqi people a helping hand, if anything. Why? Because we are the most powerful country in the world. With the choice of compassionate generosity or murder and thievery, the Bush administration chose the latter and the sad part is that half the country supported these actions.

I for one am ashamed of our leadership and feel for every Iraqi, American and other foreign citizen who have lost a loved one due to this administrations deceptions and greed.

If you supported this war then you go volunteer over there, otherwise the blood of tens of thousands of people is on your hands every time you open your mouth about it.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Amuk the embargo in iraq was push by the US government. Yes US is as guilty as anyother country that agree with it.

I am sorry but I have to agree with Wask on this one first US kills millions with the embargo, and now US and coallition is killing the rest that survived Sadam cruelty, UN and US enforced embargo and the ivasion.


The sanctions were for him NOT living up to his agreements he signed at the end of the first war. He was given a chance and combat was halted for 13 years is all.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
they have a large able military group of 80.000 and they are waiting to see how the rest of Iraq develops into before they scream "autonomy" and then I wonder what the US is going to do.


It's not the US that will have something to say about it - it's the Turks. They will not tolerate a soveriegn Kurdish state. Too bad really, they are as much the bastard children of the middle east as the Palestinians.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
edsinger, what agreement was he not living up to?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I agree, Bleys, but is going to be something to watch when the Kurds decided to be autonomous and the Turks decide to impose their opposition and stop them then I wonder what the US is going to do if war brakes between the Turks and the Kurds, whose side will they take.

After all the administration made sure that everybody remembered the hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people that die under the oppression of Sadam, so I wonder what US will do if the Turks decide to do what Sadam did to the kurds.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
If you supported this war then you go volunteer over there, otherwise the blood of tens of thousands of people is on your hands every time you open your mouth about it.


If you had been smart enough to read my post You would have seen that I did not support this war nor do I now. I merely stated that more people died from the embargo than the war and more would have died without it. If you would stop your USA bashing long enough to check out the link you would see that lives were SAVED by going in. I will repeat again for those that do not understand I AM NOT A BUSH SUPPORTER. I think the war has taken the focus off the real problem. BUT that is not the point of my post.

The point was

Almost 200,000 Iraqis were dying a year because of the UN embargo Whither you like Bush or not you got to admit that they were suffering even more under the embargo

As for me joining and fighting a war.

Already have a long time ago

My question for you is if you hate America so much why dont you join the insurgents?

Or would that involve getting up from your computer and doing something instead of sitting on your ass and bitching



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join