From the Washington Post, a well known conservative rag... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html Excerpt: Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5. Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.
The UN estimates that there will be as many as 500,000 Iraqi casualties in the pending war. And we're basing the Unicef figures on "Iraqi government figures?" I thought they were liars.
We're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. You'll get very little argument from anyone in the "peace camp" that a change of government in Iraq would be a good thing for all concerned. Almost all of my opposition stems from the complete bullsh** nature of the approach of the Bush administration to rendering that change. From the high-handed way he's treated our allies and the UN, to the parade of lies and half-truthe presented as caussus belli (yes wrong latin plural there), to the complete lack of salesmanship and forthcoming-ness with the American people regarding the short-term and long-term costs of the war in terms of both money and manpower, and finally a complete and utter disregard for what all of the above will do to regional and global stability. It's all wrong, everything except the overall goal. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Meaning the war would be the equivalent of about 8 years worth of sanctions. The sanctions are not going to be lifted as long as Saddam is in power. So if there is no war, do you believe Saddam will be out of power within 8 years?
Again, you're basing your initial numbers on Iraqi government tallies. Please address why you think this information from them is accurate and the information they give on their weapons is not.
Well, that's two consecutive "Hey Peace-Lovers, READ THIS!!!!!" thread that I've taken precious seconds with, and that will pretty much be the only two. First Buchanan, and now the Post as an anti-war paper? Jesus. If the Post is so freaking liberal, where's their follow-up on the spy memo story?
The author is (probably deliberately) confusing "containment" with economic sanctions. Peaceniks have been calling for an end to economic sanctions for the past 12 years because of this exact problem, but lifting sanctions doesn't mean an end to monitoring Saddam for troop movements and/or missile buildup.
And they took their numbers from the Iraqi government, which I guess we're allowed to do as long as they agree with us.