NationStates Jolt Archive

According to UNICEF... NO! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A809-2004Nov20?language=printer)


After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.


"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq.

The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.


But at least they have their "freedom"..... right?

The apostrophe is unnecessary.

The apostrophe is unnecessary.
ROFL.... touché!

The apostrophe is unnecessary.


As is food for Iraqis aparently....

touché

It's part of a traditional post-occupation curve.

A few thoughts:

US efforts to feed Germans post WWI did not start until 1920, and the first program was just a bunch of quakers handing out food in Berlin.

Malnutrition persisted in post WWII Germany at higher-than-normal levels until into the 1950's.

Give it more than a year, their quality of life will improve.

According to UNICEF... NO! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A809-2004Nov20?language=printer)



But at least they have their "freedom"..... right?

We are doing MORE THAN OUR PART. Why don't you crybaby libs go there and do your part. Who do you think is bombing public places? I know your stupid answer: "THEY WOULD NOT RANDOMLY KILL THEIR OWN NEIGHBORS IF THE US WERE TO LEAVE". By the way, did I accidentally quote UNISERF?

We are doing MORE THAN OUR PART. Why don't you crybaby libs go there and do your part. Who do you think is bombing public places? I know your stupid answer: "THEY WOULD NOT RANDOMLY KILL THEIR OWN NEIGHBORS IF THE US WERE TO LEAVE". By the way, did I accidentally quote UNISERF?


Wow - such a well thought out retort: "Why don't the 'crybaby libs' who WARNED that this was the likely outcome BEFORE the war go an help out more now?".

Why not? .... I mean - besides the obvious fact that the He-Man Consevs have mucked it up so bad that they can't provide neccessary security to allow the help needed to get to the people....which is why every "crybaby lib" aid group has had to pull out.



Newsflash: It's a fairly well known fact that dead aid workers don't help the starving all that much...

We are doing MORE THAN OUR PART. Why don't you crybaby libs go there and do your part. Who do you think is bombing public places? I know your stupid answer: "THEY WOULD NOT RANDOMLY KILL THEIR OWN NEIGHBORS IF THE US WERE TO LEAVE". By the way, did I accidentally quote UNISERF?

Why the bad language? Is this good republican manners?

Those of us living in the west have no right to judge whether the iraqis are or aren't better off now. Its true that either the right wing or left wing can point to statistics that favor one or the other view - but it's impossible for us to get the whole picture. There have been surveys conducted in Iraq that seem to indicate that people on the whole believe that they are better off without Saddam - but we must remember that the responses are only from those people who would want to take a survey organized by a western group in the first place, not to mention the fact that whoever organized the survey was probably not able to equally (proportionately) represent all the regions of Iraq. While iraqis aren't being killed in large numbers by the government in organized mass-killings, they are exposed to greater danger on a daily basis - not only terrorist attacks and the U.S. bombs, but also common crime which has skyrocketed in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. The police is being forced into the role of a military organization and because it is constantly fighting the insurgents they are less able to deal with common crime which effects the average citizen. Also, while the U.S. has avoided committing human rights violations on a massive scale, the average iraqi citizen is still treated as an enemy, or at least a suspect, in his own home. I won't go as far as to say that the human rights situation has worsened - after all, a handful of beatings and killings at Abu Ghraib is not comparable to the quantity of political violence that went on under Hussein, but the deterioration of order may cancel out the nominal improvements in democracy and human rights.

Another thing to think about - I'm an American and i tend to lean quite a bit to the left on most issues. However, supposing some left wing expatriate who had fled to Canada when Bush came to power decided to invade and liberate America, i would never recognize him as a legitimate leader. Most people are not likely to support a leader who is appointed by a foreign power and who supported an armed invasion of his own country. If we imagine a regime like the one Iraq now has (made up of exiles who had lived abroad for decades) in America, it is obvious why many consider it illegitimate. Of course an authoritarian regime that takes power in a coup is not any more legitimate - but is a regime appointed by invaders really that different?

What it really comes down to is this. From an objective point of view, anyone can see that the iraqis are not better off RIGHT NOW. They're dying at a much higher rate than before, they have more crime, less infrastructure, and a fractured national identity. Even most conservatives will admit that. But this is the real question: is the current situation a necessary transition to something better, or is it the result of a fundamentally unjustified invasion? If elections actually are held in the next few months, will they make a significant difference in the situation? If not, will any amount of military force make the country ready for democracy? The US government claims that the insurgents are die-hard loyalists to the old regime, and once they are killed the more moderate iraqis will see that participation in a democratic system is in their best interests. The opposing claim is that the more the US tries to crack down on the insurgency, the more it inflames it. The fact that the rebels were able to take control of an entire city over a year after major combat operations supposedly ended suggests that they are not "die-hard loyalists" as the US government would like us to think, but are indeed a vital and growing movement.

give it time, their lives will improve in time. Come back and post the same thing in 3 years.

well said.

Wow - such a well thought out retort: "Why don't the 'crybaby libs' who WARNED that this was the likely outcome BEFORE the war go an help out more now?".

Why not? .... I mean - besides the obvious fact that the He-Man Consevs have mucked it up so bad that they can't provide neccessary security to allow the help needed to get to the people....which is why every "crybaby lib" aid group has had to pull out.



Newsflash: It's a fairly well known fact that dead aid workers don't help the starving all that much...

My point, exactly. Why don't you sign up to be and "aids worker", or a booby-trap.

I don't think it is possible to measure suffering. There were those who suffered under Saddam, and might have it better now. There are those who are suffering as a result of the war, who hadn't had that situation under Saddam. This occupation was poorly planned, indeed no plans were made by this administration for a prolonged occupation. I think "insurgency" will not go away when so many civilians have lost family members including children. We're told about these "precision" air strikes. How precise exactly is it when a 500-pound bomb hits the ground? Anyone within 400m that isn't immediately killed is going to suffer a slow horrible death from having their sinuses and eardrums burst.

Why the bad language? Is this good republican manners?

Marines are getting killed. What language do you double-speak?

I think we have to wait and see.

We are doing MORE THAN OUR PART. Why don't you crybaby libs go there and do your part. Who do you think is bombing public places? I know your stupid answer: "THEY WOULD NOT RANDOMLY KILL THEIR OWN NEIGHBORS IF THE US WERE TO LEAVE". By the way, did I accidentally quote UNISERF?
well I do know who is bombing public places, emotionally disturbed americans in appaches and bombers.

yeah if i was an iraq i would think i was better off

being killed without a reason by an occupying force that hates you because of conditioning and doesnt respect your life is much better than being killed by an oppressive dictator who doesnt respect your life because you pissed him off

My point, exactly. Why don't you sign up to be and "aids worker", or a booby-trap.
you could just sign up to be a booby, are you fighting in iraq? if not, shut the fuck up, else, still shut the fuck up.

Excelent post, wyczestr.
These are my opinion also.
It´s very true that a nation would never accept a foreign as their leader (US have laws against that even on fair square elections, right?) and is also true that Iraq today is very worse, but, when they get up on their feet, they could turn out better then with Saddam.
BUT I still think, IMO, that is the right of a people to make their own revolutions, and, if helped by other nations, the war be fought on the people´s conditions (and not the foreign, I mean, If a Iraqi anti-Saddam could decide, he would never authorize a bombing on civilian area of Bagdah, wich, happened.).
True, Iraqis are more free now (ok, not noooow now, but they will be in a few years), but, will they like this freedom? Will they hold it heartly as something true to the nation history? Or, if given opportunity, they will support another dicatorship because of the feeling that this "revolution" was not theirs? Time alone will say, but, again, IMO, the next generation will hate US even more.

you could just sign up to be a booby, are you fighting in iraq? if not, shut the fuck up, else, still shut the fuck up.

Get another brain cell, and try to use it to clean up your gutter-talk.

My point, exactly. Why don't you sign up to be and "aids worker", or a booby-trap.


Be 'and "aids worker"'???


We're discussing starvation - not STDs ....

Marines are getting killed. What language do you double-speak?

Of course marines are getting killed. They chose to be marines and take their chances. Civilians are also getting killed. They chose to stay at home. Some of them even chose to defend their country. Who is better off?

Any evidence you can provide to show that Iraqis think they are better off is dated. Since last summer, they know better.

"Are Iraqis better off now?"

Perhaps not, but they will be.

"Are Iraqis better off now?"

Perhaps not, but they will be.

When? When they're all dead and buried?

When? When they're all dead and buried?
No, when we can stabilize the country, minimize the insurgency and pull out with a strong, stable and free nation in the place of Hussein's strong and stable dictatorship.

No, when we can stabilize the country, minimize the insurgency and pull out with a strong, stable and free nation in the place of Hussein's strong and stable dictatorship.

I hate to break it to you, but assuming you can even manage just the pulling-out part, there'll be an Islamic fundamentalist regime in place before you know it. Oh it'll be strong...eventually. But it won't be stable or free. That's a pipe-dream if I've ever heard one.

Blue skies for rose-tinted glasses, all dreamt about in glorious technicolour.

Of course marines are getting killed. They chose to be marines and take their chances. Civilians are also getting killed. They chose to stay at home. Some of them even chose to defend their country. Who is better off?


Ohhhh MODED!

Are Iraqi's better off now?
Nope.

Be 'and "aids worker"'???


We're discussing starvation - not STDs ....

But you have to cut the little one some slack. As far as I can ascertain he's only about 11 or so and gets confused easily. If it's who I guess it is from the sad nick.... ;)

According to UNICEF... NO! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A809-2004Nov20?language=printer)



But at least they have their "freedom"..... right?
Hmm.

1. A temporary era of reduced law and order during civil change
or
2. Continuation under a regime that daily cut out tongues, disemboweled, dismembered, decapitated, threw off buildings, prodded, and tortured its people.
Tough choice, eh?
See the movie Buried in the Sand.

I hate to break it to you, but assuming you can even manage just the pulling-out part, there'll be an Islamic fundamentalist regime in place before you know it. Oh it'll be strong...eventually. But it won't be stable or free. That's a pipe-dream if I've ever heard one.

Blue skies for rose-tinted glasses, all dreamt about in glorious technicolour.
Did I mention my belief that we will have a sizable force in Iraq for a very long time, say, 30+ years?

Be 'and "aids worker"'???


We're discussing starvation - not STDs ....

Don't confuse him. Spell out Sexually Transmited Diseases. ;)

http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/cc0001-041120.shtml

http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/cc0001-041120.shtml

:D

Ohhhh MODED!
I'm sorry, I am only 15 and have a poor grasp on english. Besides, I haven't been around to learn the NS vocabulary. How do you mean 'moded'?

Wow - such a well thought out retort: "Why don't the 'crybaby libs' who WARNED that this was the likely outcome BEFORE the war go an help out more now?".

Why not? .... I mean - besides the obvious fact that the He-Man Consevs have mucked it up so bad that they can't provide neccessary security to allow the help needed to get to the people....which is why every "crybaby lib" aid group has had to pull out.



Newsflash: It's a fairly well known fact that dead aid workers don't help the starving all that much...

It's also a fairly well-known fact that the United Nations is a useless, beaurocracy-choked morass filled with squabbling delegates and wholly ineffective as a governing body.

It's also a fairly well-known fact that the United Nations is a useless, beaurocracy-choked morass filled with squabbling delegates and wholly ineffective as a governing body.

SNIFF

Ahhh a liberterian?

Naw, just a Canadian conservative.

If you were to take everything away, but leave me my freedom, I'd rebuild. Take my freedom away and it's all over.

Naw, just a Canadian conservative.

Wow, I've heard of you... Most of the rest of us Canadians thought you were extinct! LOL :D

Are the Iraqis better off now?

no.

Who do you think is bombing public places?
The US airforce. They just love a good wedding.

Wow, I've heard of you... Most of the rest of us Canadians thought you were extinct! LOL :D
And, no I dont live in Alberta either!Conservative Torontonians are hard to find. However, I don't like Harper at all. :D

But at least they have their "freedom"..... right?
And thats what realy counts. Let's focus on that. Forget the rest and then it doesn't look so bad anymore.

Did I mention my belief that we will have a sizable force in Iraq for a very long time, say, 30+ years?
Well of course the US will be in control militarily over Iraq for a long time to come.....that is part of the master plan. The other part is to control (through foreign ownership)and regulate the Iraqi economy by use of Bremer's Orders:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:

(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

That is just Bremer's Order # 39. There are obviously at least 38 more. The US will eventually "liberate" the Iraqis from their ability to control anything.