Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How 500,000 children died in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 05:19 PM
Original message
How 500,000 children died in Iraq
In the latest issue of the London Review of Books, Andrew Cockburn reviews

Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions by Joy Gordon
Harvard, 359 pp, £29.95, April 2010, ISBN 978 0 674 03571 3

Cockburn begins with descriptions of several blockades:

Few people now remember that for many months after the First World War ended in November 1918 the blockade of Germany, where the population was already on the edge of starvation, was maintained with full rigour. By the following spring, the German authorities were projecting a 50 per cent increase in the infant mortality rate. In a later memoir, John Maynard Keynes attributed the prolongation of civilian punishment

"to a cause inherent in bureaucracy. The blockade had become by that time a very perfect instrument. It had taken four years to create and was Whitehall’s finest achievement; it had evoked the qualities of the English at their subtlest. Its authors had grown to love it for its own sake; it included some recent improvements, which would be wasted if it came to an end; it was very complicated, and a vast organisation had established a vested interest. The experts reported, therefore, that it was our one instrument for imposing our peace terms on Germany, and that once suspended it could hardly be reimposed."

In the event, the ban on food imports was lifted (for fear of promoting Bolshevism) before Germany accepted the punitive terms of the Versailles treaty, but blockades have retained their popularity as a weapon deployed by strong powers against the weak. In most instances they have been ineffective in achieving their stated purpose, the notable exception being the sanctions reluctantly levied by Western governments in response to popular pressure against the South African apartheid regime. More often they constitute an exercise in vindictiveness, as with the US embargo on Vietnam and Cambodia after the Indochina war, or Israel’s blockade of Gaza with the expressed intention of ‘putting the population on a diet’.

There follows an apt comparison between the blockades of Germany and Iraq:

The multiple disasters inflicted on Iraq since the 2003 Anglo-American invasion have tended to overshadow the lethally effective ‘invisible war’ waged against Iraqi civilians between August 1990 and May 2003 with the full authority of the United Nations and the tireless attention of the US and British governments. As an example of carefully crafted callousness this story offers a close parallel to Britain’s German exercise. In both cases, sanctions were retained after their original purpose – the military defeat of the blockaded nation – had been achieved, and in both cases they targeted civilians while leaving their rulers relatively unscathed. ...

Cockburn also tells how the blockade of Iraq killed so many children:

Throughout the period of sanctions, the United States frustrated Iraq’s attempts to import pumps needed in the plants treating water from the Tigris, which had become an open sewer thanks to the destruction of treatment plants. Chlorine, vital for treating a contaminated water supply, was banned on the grounds that it could be used as a chemical weapon. The consequences of all this were visible in paediatric wards. Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water.

Read more:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n14/andrew-cockburn/worth-it/print

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. How? With US taxpayer funding, and the US government's blessing.
Edited on Thu Jul-29-10 05:34 PM by ixion
You and I -- every single US taxpayer -- have paid to have the children of Iraq killed. You can deny and make all the excuses you want, but this is the plain truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty.
The title of Cockburn's review is a quote from Madeleine Albright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Indeed.
The slaughter was a bi-partisan effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. longest war in us history...the war on iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And they never did "squat" to us.
Freaking Kuwaiti RoilsarelikethiswithPoppy.

K&R & big "F.U." in advance to the cowardly unrec crew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. After Desert Storm,
ads appeared in US magazines, giving thanks to America from "the people of Kuwait", meaning the citizens of Kuwait (as opposed to their servants). The citizens are rich, and most of them were somewhere else during the hottest month of the year. When the Iraqis invaded, the servants were there to receive them. Nobody asked the servants how they felt about the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. If you count the blockade as an act of war
(which is a reasonable point of view), then we have been waging war on Iraq since August 2, 1990. That is a few days shy of 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R.
murderous empire.

VOMIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. North Korea starves their people - Saddam did too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. So are you justifying the IWAR. I knew you would admit it sooner or later. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. And we burn the Iraqi children with phosphorus bombs. What's your point? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. Why do you continually spew right wing talking points on DU?
That is ALL you ever do.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. utter tripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. This book contains harsh truths...
And our government needs to face them.


As do we...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R for a long look in the mirror...
We were apathetic as a people for decades.
We paid little if any attention to what our
"government" was responsible for in the destruction of
other countries and people.

Kissinger and crew were the founders of the US as
a violent military machine, pillaging every corner of the globe
for the profits of multi national corporations.

Now we are their victims and it was our apathy and
sense of being oh so "special" as people living in the
great United States.

Never did we suspect that our tax dollars would eventually
be used to destroy us too.

And so it goes.

BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I don't think it started with Kissinger,
although he carried realpolitik to new heights.

I'd say we started fighting all over the world during the Spanish-American War (1898), which led us to take over Guam and the Philippines. Prior to that, our aggression was concentrated on places closer to home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. When the USA started this war with Iraq..more than 50% of Iraqi Civilians was under the age of 15.
I know that because I posted that over and over and over and over to Bushbots!
It was data released just before GW Bush started his war of lies ..and our congress allowed it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Has the number of Iraqi children really shrunk that much?
The CIA keeps track of the "age structure" of the Iraqi population. The latest figures are as follows:

0-14 years: 39.7% (male 5,398,645; female 5,231,760)

15-64 years: 57.3% (male 7,776,257; female 7,576,726)

65 years and over: 3% (male 376,700; female 423,295) (2006 est.)

The change in the population under 15 from over 50% to under 40% since 2003, if true, is astonishing, even if soldiers were not counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. When superpowers want your resources
they kill anything in the way. What children??? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. I'm not sure it was for the oil.
The reason for our invasion of a country that posed no real threat and had done us no harm is still obscure. I suspect that W mainly wanted to enrich some of his friends. The invasion made it possible to spend huge sums of taxpayers' money without accounting for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
18. Rec'd n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
19. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
21. It WAS 500,000...back in 1996, 14 years ago.
How many is it now...?

And yet, just as we approach the anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Japan, we still have the majority of DU'ers (I think) saying that it was necessary.

Dio they not see their complicity?

If Germany had won WWII, I am sure they would have had plenty of rationalizations as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. How many is it now?
It's hard to say. Since 1996 is about half way between the beginning of the blockade (1990) and our unprovoked invasion (2003), I would guess that number of babies killed by the blockade was about one million for the period covered by the book under review. Since then, of course, there have been new horrors that would be the topic of a different book.

Sorry, but I don't get the point of your comparison with events of WW2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raggz Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. It was the United Nations
Why not just say that this was a UN blockade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Why not just say that this was a UN blockade?
Yes, it was a UN blockade, but that is not the whole story. If you followed the link in the OP, you will recall Andrew Cockburn's answer to your question:

"Resolution 661 prohibited the sale or supply of any goods to Iraq (or to Kuwait while it was under Iraqi control) with the explicit exception of ‘supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs’. However, every single item Iraq sought to import, including food and medicine, had to be approved by the ‘661 Committee’, created for this purpose and staffed by diplomats from the 15 members of the Security Council. The committee met in secret and published scarcely any record of its proceedings. Thanks to the demise of the Soviet Union, the US now dominated the UN, using it to provide a cloak of legitimacy for its unilateral actions.

"The 661 Committee’s stated purpose was to review and authorise exceptions to the sanctions, but as Gordon explains, its actual function was to deny the import of even the most innocuous items on the grounds that they might, conceivably, be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. An ingenious provision allowed any committee member to put any item for which clearance had been requested on hold. So, while other members, even a majority, might wish to speed goods to Iraq, the US and its ever willing British partner could and did block whatever they chose on the flimsiest of excuses ... Thus in the early 1990s the United States blocked, among other items, salt, water pipes, children’s bikes, materials used to make nappies, equipment to process powdered milk and fabric to make clothes. The list would later be expanded to include switches, sockets, window frames, ceramic tiles and paint. In 1991 American representatives forcefully argued against permitting Iraq to import powdered milk on the grounds that it did not fulfil a humanitarian need. Later, the diplomats dutifully argued that an order for child vaccines, deemed ‘suspicious’ by weapons experts in Washington, should be denied."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. But..but..it was for their own good! We gave them democracy..sot of.
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it",
said Major Booris, without irony, during the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Over Caffeinated Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. Old news is old news. Our sanctions on Iraq and their perverse consequences...
were one the reasons behind 9/11. The other two were occupying their lands in Saudi Arabia and our support for Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lionel Mandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-31-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Old news becomes history.
Our sanctions on Iraq and their perverse consequences are well known to some of us, but not to most of us.

When the best journalist covering Iraq recommends a book about Iraq, that is news of a sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC