What Fresh Hell Is This?

August 26, 2010

The Trib Conveniently Forgets Our History

I don't have much time - but that's OK because this won't take much time.

From today's Thursday Wrap:
What a guy: As you know, U.S. taxpayers have sent controversial Ground Zero imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on a "religious tolerance" tour of the Mideast. This would be the same imam who, according to Human Events, told an audience at the University of Australia in 2005 that the United States is worse than al-Qaida. Specifically: "(T)he United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims." It takes all kinds, doesn't it?
What they left out is the key to their mendacity.

From mediamatters this is, in fact, the entire paragraph from which they snipped that one sentence:
The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over a half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.
Yea, remember the sanctions? Remember the sanctions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children? Iraqi children? Muslim children?

[I]f 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.
Reason Magazine (even after substantial skepticism of Unicef's numbers):
It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990.
Um - now go back and look at the Trib-spittle. They're trying to invalidate the imam's words by pointing out how ridiculous that sentence is.

But what happens when it turns out to be true?

Takes all kinds.


EdHeath said...

This is not counting the number of Iraqi deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq. Nor has anyone said anything about Afghanistan, and its experiences with the Soviet Union and now us.

Yes, both countries had brutal regimes led by leaders from their own countries (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban). But during the eighties we treated Hussein as if he were a friend because he was fighting that other American enemy, Iran. And the Taliban took over in Afghanistan when there was little or no international aid after the Soviets withdrawal in 1989 (which we had some part in). And of course now we have bombed and shot in Afghanistan for the last nine years, without really trying to take the steps that would bring stability to the country.

Our history with countries in the Near and Middle East that we have taken a "special" interest in is nothing to be proud of.

Heir to the Throne said...

So you are admitting that the Iraq sanctions caused more deaths than the Iraq war.
...Conveniently Forgets Our History
Someone "forgot" that those opposed to the Iraq war claimed that the sanctions were working (Saddam is in a box) and that we should just continue them instead of going to war.

EdHeath said...

What HTTT? Who is admitting anything?

Honestly, I have no idea which of the first gulf war or the sanctions or the second Iraqi war and occupation killed more Iraqis, and frankly it is more than a little distasteful to speculate. Do you win something if the sanctions killed more Iraqis? They started under the first President Bush and, yes, continued under Clinton. By contrast, Robert Mugabe came into power when I believe Carter was still in office, and has been in power ever since, and no President Democrat or Republican has taken sufficient action to force him out of office.

Actually the Iraq sanctions were "working" in the sense that Saddam Hussein was not able to resurrect his weapons of mass destruction program, and was in fact reasonably contained. His country was in very bad shape economically, which was I believe a direct result of the sanctions. I think it is perfectly reasonable for imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to mention the effect the sanctions had in the context of how the Muslim world sees us.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

"If". Ranks right up there with "maybe" or "maybe not". We could also use "may have" or it's sibling "may have not". Pure conjecture on anyone's part.

I will grant them 1 thing though.. the meme fits the "women, children and minorities hurt most" theme... whether or not it's true.

Ol' Froth said...

I'm sure the Iraqi's killed in the war would agree with your assesment, Heir.

What a collosal piece of shit you are.

EdHeath said...

So CM, you are saying that whether the sanctions were in place or not, the child mortality rate in Iraq would have greatly increased from the 1980's to the 1990's?

There's a difference between "pure conjecture" and conclusions drawn from facts. But then I forget, Republicans make up fantasy numbers concerning taxes, and phantom weapons of mass destruction. Lying and distorting the truth is like breathing for your party.

Anonymous said...

"Lying and distorting the truth is like breathing for your party."

@Ed - so true. Great line.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

"So CM, you are saying that whether the sanctions were in place or not, the child mortality rate in Iraq would have greatly increased from the 1980's to the 1990's?"

No, Ed. I did not say "would have greatly increased" nor did I imply such. Typical Liberal response. Put words in someone else's mouth. I simply do not agree with the repise that sanctions *by themselves* reduced the birthrate. Nice try, though.

Here's one that is fact... The increase use of abortions in the US has reduced the number of citizens by 40 million... or whatever number it is? I guess in your Liberal twisted mind that's a "reduction in the birthrate".

Conservative Mountaineer said...

@Ed and @Jaywillie...

"Lying and distorting the truth is like breathing for your party."

LMAO at (apparent) Obama supporters.

How's that Hopey/Changey workin' for ya?

EdHeath said...

CM do you understand the difference between the concepts of child mortality rates versus birth rates? Feisal Abdul Rauf/s point was that the child mortality rate did increase considerably in Iraq during the sanctions. Feisal Abdul Rauf blames the sanctions, do you have a different explanation?

Birth rate and child mortality rate are not synonyms. Why are you being so imprecise? Don't you understand English? Do you see why I say that lying and distorting the truth is like breathing for Republicans? Because you keep proving me right.

By the way, abortions in the US have nothing to do with this conversation, it is merely your attempt to distract from the effects of US foreign policy with an inflammatory remark. And I have no confidence in your "fact". There is no reason that a woman who has an abortion will not have a child later. But go ahead and make stuff up (with no supporting reference), like you always do.