"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

It looks like sanctions caused the deaths of 4,000 children a month for
10
years.

Perhaps. Taking them in order, it appears that you are correct WRT
antibiotics et al being on the restricted list. The second one,
increase in the mortality rate, depends on why it increased and for
that you'd need to look at an age-based breakdown and causes. The third
one I don't accept as valid to blame on sanctions. Hussein's regime had
plenty of money to spend on food, they simply didn't choose to do it.
If someone blows their budget on cigarettes, booze & gambling while
their kids starve, who's responsible? Not me. That leads directly to
people demanding whatever they want or they'll make someone else suffer
the consequences. With parents holding their children to ransom in this
manner, we take the kids off them. With countries doing it to their
population, I have no problems with dealing with that in kind.

There is one very small flaw in your analogy. The money that Saddam spent
on "cigarettes, booze and gambling" (palaces and weapons??) wouldn't have
made much difference to the population at large.







One can take two views on the sanctions issue. One view is that they
failed, so war became necessary.
In this case the childrens' deaths were totally unnecessary.

Alternatively, Hussein could have complied with the resolutions in
1991, rendering the sanctions unnecessary and the deaths avoidable. He
didn't. Whose ultimate responsibility?

Two wrongs do not make a right!




The other(cynical) view is that the sanctions were used to soften up
Saddam's military machine, and they were very successful indeed. In
this
case, the children were colateral damage.

In either case, at least 480,000 children died for no good reason. You
cannot claim that Saddam killed them. They wouldn't have died if Saddam
was
allowed to rule Iraq as he saw fit.

Heh. Possibly true. And if he'd been allowed to keep Kuwait, there
wouldn't have been a Gulf War,

I never suggested that he should have been allowed to keep Kuwait. In
fact, I complained that the Allies didn't finish off the job at the time.
They should have marched on Baghdad.

However, it is worth noting that Saddam asked for US permission to invade
Kuwait. The US ambassador, famously, gave him the impression that the US
had no interest in the matter.



there wouldn't have been any DU used,
there wouldn't have been any cancers/birth defects (accepting for the
sake of argument that DU *was* responsible), there wouldn't have been
any sanctions so there wouldn't have been any increase in the mortality
rate or kids dying from malnutrition and everyone would be living in
sweetness and light today. That's the logical place your line of
argument is going.


Correct!


Statistics, and reports, prove nothing more than what their author's
want
you to believe. I've seen reports that said that said that Saddam had
WMD
that could be used against us in 45 minutes!!

I like to play on a level playing field. So, I will not acquiese to
your
request for a citation while you use a vague "report".

Suit yourself, Donal. You made the original claim as is evident above.
I've twice asked you, politely, to provide evidence. You were quick
enough to do a Google search WRT drugs & sanctions, funny that you
can't do the same thing for your DU claim. I'm quite happy to leave it
lie as-is. It's pretty obvious to everyone.......

Or perhaps I've accepted your arguement that they *might* be the result of
Chemical weapons??? There is no point in having a debate if you won't
listen to the other side.



Do a Google search for 'mustard gas birth defects' and see what pops
up. Here's one out of hundreds for you.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archives/001206.html

It doesn't prove anything, does it?

I *am* willing to read any evidence that points to the real cause of the
undisputed rise in cancer in Southern Iraq. However, that link didn't
provide any evidence that could be "cited", did it?



BTW, who says aluminium is bad for you? Except some weak evidence
linking Al oxides with Alzheimers (IIRC) this is just another rumour
put about by the lunatic fringe.

Hmmmmm! You remind me of the scientists who said that it was safe to
eat
beef because there was no proven link between BSE and CJD.

I have had the 'benefit' of considerable formal training in scientific
method in my past life. I also understand the difference between 'not
proven' and 'no connection'. Where's the peer-reviewed epidemiological
studies showing Al is bad for you, when linked with lead, implying as
you do that the 2 are equivalently poisonous? It's a ridiculous claim
on available evidence. However, it matters little what you want to
believe, or I want to believe. The world is as it is regardless. I
wouldn't eat stuff cooked in lead pots, I have no problems with Al.

Cite!!!


I would be really pleased to hear that aluminium wasn't dangerous. Every
decent coffee maker seems to have an aluminium pressure container.



I'd recommend MySql and PHP.

Sorry, Informix, Java and Sun Microsystems Solaris. This system has to
be bulletproof and as it's had 1 day unplanned downtime in 10 years, it
is just that with Informix running on Solaris. The client front end has
been upgraded over the years from CUI to GUI without compromising
reliability. MySQL is a lovely back end for Web sites and the like and
I still use PostgreSQL by preference. More robust.

Probably true. We're a small user, but we've had over 1 million
transactions without a glitch in the last two years.




30C outside and I'm off to the beach for a swim, followed by a glass or
2 of a chilled white wine. Hope your winter isn't too severe this year.

Pah! Global warming is becoming *very* evident here!




Regards


Donal
--