Talk:Iraq sanctions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I made a few small but significant changes to this article's handling of Iraqi deaths as a result of the sanctions. Presenting the 500,000 deaths as proven fact, and as facts entirely accepted by the U.N., is wrong. I included a link to the Web page that caused me to question these totals. The U.N. reports on this topic were clear that the sanctions alone were not to blame for the increases in child mortality in Iraq, and also did not support the 500,000 children/1 million dead numbers.

Here is that link again, in case anyone takes issues with its reasoning or my edits. Thanks. (preceding unsigned comment by Marley23 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2005)

Those changes seem reasonable looking at the source, but in view of how widespread the 500,000 figure is, some more detail on how this figure came about (maybe in a footnote?) and perhaps another source to back it up would be useful. Rd232 ^talk 10:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the correct estimate is 1.7 m total deaths. I've provided one link that mentions that, but there are several others as well: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2001/0510ina.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/iraq/ffiraqtime.xml you can search google for "Iraq Sanctions 1.7 million dead" and find plenty of other links

why the hell was this link removed? until someone can provide a reasonable explantion, im putting it back in.

There's two or three links there that discuss these numbers, not 100% sure which one you are attached to. If I changed a link, it was because I thought I found a better. If I read correctly the 1.7 million figure is mistakenly high, even according to the researchers who originally came up with it. So for those who are justly concerned with deaths owing to the sanctions, it doesn't do any good to trumpet overly high numbers because then they lose credibility. The 1.7 million figure was also a number that I really never came across until I read this Wikipedia article. I think the correct way to refer to it is "hundreds of thousand of deaths," because that figure is pretty well accepted, and you don't get bogged down in some diversion over the exact numbers. DanielM 07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody reverted with a comment about "smarkectomy," but it doesn't really help the article. The reference (which is from some Iraqi cultural minister) refers to depleted uranium deaths and bombshell deaths as well as sanctions. Few agree with the 1.7 million figure. I am dismayed by the sanctions deaths as much as anyone but it doesn't help to overstate them, as said previously you lose credibility. If you just want to generate some oohs and ahs why not claim 10 million, you can surely Google up some person who said that number. DanielM 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 The reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM. 2 link??? 3 Lame Revert War 4 Request Deletions of Critism of Sanctions Section Be Stopped 5 Albright statement

[edit] The reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM.

1) Iraq claimed UNSCOM had been infiltrated by American and British spies, who were more interested in Iraq's legally allowed conventional weapon systems.

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

2) Iraq claimed that the US and UK would veto any attempt to lift or reduce sanctions

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-07.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html

Then of course, there's the problem of proving a negative. How exactly does Iraq prove it does not possess WMDs? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Iraq could no more prove they aren't hiding WMDs than they could prove they aren't hiding aliens or bigfoot. Not finding anything proves nothing. It could mean they don't exist, or they do exist and haven't been found...yet.

There is a lot of BS surrounding this issue. I think its important because the US justified its invasion of Iraq in part by Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspections. Since the invasion, its now fairly certain that Iraq hasn't possessed WMDs since 1994.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

So why wouldn't Iraq cooperate after everything had been found (1995 onward)??? I can't think of a good reason for Iraq not to cooperate if weapon inspections were fair and impartial. Therefore either the inspections weren't fair and impartial or Iraq had come to percieve the inspections as fair and impartial.

Therefore Iraq came to the conclusion that cooperation was pointless.

Earth as one 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A good reason not to cooperate is that Saddam found the status quo quite useful. The sanctions regime very substantially increased his hold over the Iraqi people (by giving him more control over food coming into the country etc). It was also in his interest strategically to maintain an ambiguity over whether he had WMD, both internally (prestige) and externally (remember the 1980-88 war against Iran) - as long as he didn't think that anybody would invade him in order to disarm him of WMD. I've also seen it suggested that Saddam's own people were lying to him over whether they still had viable WMD. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your points. That's not the direct subject of this article, but I do think it would be good if you could wrap it up into a tight paragraph with a choice link or two, this could be included and would benefit the article. The lead paragraph "sanctions imposed because of Saddam's failures" or whatever it says also needs improvement. DanielM 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] link???

I was researching the Iraq sanctions, and I wanted more information than was in the article. I looked at one of the links at the bottom, the one titled "John Pilger, Impact of Iraq sanctions", and I was disappointed by the results. Not only is it not objectively written, but it is just as much about the gulf war as it is about the sanctions. If someone could evaluate it to confirm my objection and then remove it, that would be great.TrogdorPolitiks 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lame Revert War

This refers to the evident disagreement over the section "Problems with the Inspection Process." The section was carefully cited and sourced by Earth as One. I don't find it to be POV and I don't think it's been shown that even the section is based around the "writings of ZMag and Pilger in general" much less the entire article, as was claimed by TJive. Also his justifying his reversions as "rv mass reversions" is a little awkward IMO because those mass reversions, if that is the way to describe them, came about because of his own mass deletions, which by the way occurred without discussion. My two cents: the article states up front that the sanctions were on account of Saddam's failures, but I think the causes are more complicated than that. The section currently in question tells more about the story, is not unduly tangential, and I think it should stay. DanielM 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I believe we have encountered each other before. My comment on "mass reversions" is in reference to this user (known to me through another forum) who follows my edits around because he dislikes my views. If I ever mark edits this way in any context, that is what is happening. Another user did so using sockpuppets rather than anons, but he had stopped months ago.

As for a justification, the simplest answer is it is a tangent, and a highly tendentious interpretation of the relevant history, particularly musings on the logical "impossibility" of proving a negative, which is a very absurd, minority viewpoint stated as fact and encyclopedic. --TJive 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on my user page to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. --TJive 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I observe that the section of criticism of the UNSCOM process is continuously being removed and reverted by two users. The section is in its current form not obviously relevant to the sanctions. However, as lifting sanction was made conditional on UNSCOM cooperation, understanding how the process was frustrated becomes relevant information. I will rewrite the section to that end later this week. Jens Nielsen 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the anonymous editor that reverts the text deleted routinely by TJive. I will also revert (and tweak) it because I think it is good and has some relevance. I think others revert it. Editor Earth as One did an okay job on it originally, though his sourcing needed some improvement IMO. DanielM 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Deletions of Critism of Sanctions Section Be Stopped

This is to ask that the deletions of the "criticism of the sanctions" section be stopped. We have at least three editors who find it to be relevant. Earth as One, DanielM, and and Jensbn. Only user TJive has spoken against this text. DanielM 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the section is a good one. TJive is in a minority position. --Ben Houston 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's so good we need two of them. Good eyes. --TJive 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albright statement

I don't think mentioning that she regretted the statement adds much information. Anyone getting such an amount of bad press as she did from it would of course regret it on those grounds alone. She describes that she thought it 'stupid' to say, which does in no way exclude that she actually meant it. Jens Nielsen 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If she says it was stupid thing to say, I think that means she regrets it and doesn't feel that way. I guess you are suggesting that she is using weasel words, that she really thinks it was worth all those dead people, but she regrets only having admitted it bluntly. But I don't think there's enough evidence to assume that she is being weaselly like that. If I remember correctly they actually pinged her with this question "was it worth it" when she was walking down a hall surrounded by bunches of people, and I think it was an off-the-cuff response. So IMO it is not justified to vilify her on that comment and not provide a little more information. DanielM 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

She said it calmly on 60 Minutes. It wasn't just stupid to say it, is was - mildly put - stupid to deliberately kill several hundred thousand of innocent human beings. // Anom.