Health conditions in Iraq deteriorated substantially under Saddam Hussein. By 2003, almost a third of the children in southern and central Iraq suffered from malnutrition. Life expectancy is 58 years-low in comparison to the average for least developed countries of 65 years. USAID has partnered with UNICEF, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Abt Associates to support health program in Iraq. Since the end of the war, USAID has vaccinated three million Iraqi children under the age of five, administered tetanus vaccine to more than 700,000 pregnant women, and by April 30, 2004 the USAID mission will have provided updated vaccinations to 90 percent of pregnant women and children under five years of age. Other efforts include equipping 600 facilities in seven target governorates to provide essential primary healthcare services, training more than 2,000 primary healthcare providers, and re-establishing the country's vital disease surveillance system. Mobile health teams working with the Ministry of Health have visited more than 2,000 families who do not have normal access to or have not visited primary health care facilities as well. read more here: http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2004/fs040318.html
Were you hibernating when the left was caterwauling about our sanctions killing 500,000 Iraqi kids? I think that the number got inflated to millions by the time of the war. What they won't admit is that they believe that we in the west are evil and we can never do the right thing. They believe that no matter how bad a tyrant like Saddam is, we are worse and we deserve to be punished by such heroes.
Does this count the kids in Children's Prisons? Actually, it turns out that the people "starving children" and "denying them medicines" were not the US but the Europeans and UN officials who were, along with Saddam and his sons, stealing all the money. The "Guns for Palaces" program was corrupt to the core. Not that the US press is even mentioning this exploding scandal. Even Kofi Annan's son was on the take, along with half the French government and most of Russia's) So the left, who wailed about the suffering that the sanctions caused, were simply dead wrong. For the millionth time. (Oddly though, while the sanctions were causing so much suffering amongst the children, the left simultaneously wanted to keep them in place rather than invade and end the reason for them. I've NEVER been able to figure my way through THAT one) Which is why I know things will turn out OK in Iraq. Because the left says they won't, and they have yet to be right a single time about anything over there.
I dunno Bill, you're not going to become a famous psychic by predicting good things for the muslim world. A stopped clock is right sometimes, too. Incessantly being in favor of doing nothing can occasionally be correct. Which is one reason why I'm so infuriated with dubya, I have to suffer the likes of Molly Ivins saying "I told you so"
Mainstream liberals (Bill Clinton, me) supported the sanctions. Only extremist liberals (in general) were against them.
the "they" is the anti-war people who can't admit that there is progress being made in Iraq and that the news doesn't accurately tell the entire story of what's going on Iraq. I have friends who've gona back to Iraq and they say it's much better now. Dave, Bill Clinton is not and never was a liberal. Slightly left of center, sure - but no liberals I know are pro-death penalty, shelve environmental bills, bomb other countries (clinton wasn't exactly anti-war), etc etc. Who do you think signed all those republican bills in the 90's? I never understood why the republicans hated him so much, he was almost a republican on many issues.
so you think Clinton was liberal? Actually as Ralph Nader said - no president in the history of the united states was a liberal. If clinton ran for office in Europe he would be considered a conservative. So thanks for playing but you're wrong. like I said, Clinton signed most of those Republican bills that came across his desk.
Actually, of course, Clinton did next to nothing. He did sign off on welfare reform, after vetoing it twice, because the COngress came up with a bill that was veto proof and he'd be overridden anyway. He also signed NAFTA, another Republican priority. Beyond that, his administration was a joke. His policy of Triangulation guaranteed his popularity and continuation in office while simluataneously costing the Democrats both houses of Congress and a slew of state and local governments. Republicans don't hate CLinton because of his policies. He didn't HAVE any policies. None at all. No principles, no beliefs, nothing. His sole justification was that, as he convinced the weak minded, him just being President was enough. He didn't HAVE to do anything for blacks or the poor or the homeless or gays or anybody else (which of course he didn't) The POINT, he told everyone, was that if it wasn't for HIM, the WHite House would be taken over by this horrendous form of evil called "Republicans" who hate children, old people and minorities and who want to get richer by stealing from the poor and who want to end social security, throw old people into the streets, starve little children (if not, in fact, serve them as the entre at their bloated rich-people parties) and reinstitute segregation (but only because full slavery might prove impractical.) SO he didn't have to do anything. Him being there was a heroic stand against the evil empire of darkness who were waiting in the wings with ropes and hoods, ready to start lynching black people. That's why the right hates him - because he spent eight years lying about them, getting people to hate them and doing absolutely nothing about anything. His "policies" weren't conservative, or even moderate. He simply HAD no "policies"
Really? My sense is that this was the kind of issue that was alot less partisan than it was regional. I think you're wrong here. Alot of Reeps were against NAFTA, and alot of Dems were in favor of it. I remember when Crossfire did a show on it, the "conservative" (it wasn't Buchanan then, maybe Novak) and the "liberal" (Kinsley) both favored NAFTA, so they had to bring in a liberal and conservative guest who both were anti, for balance.
*sigh* Depending on your "sense" of anything is like trusting a retard with a bazooka. One of the major, if not THE major, players in the Democratic party is Organized Labor. NAFTA made organized labor break out in hives. To support NAFTA meant risking losng union money and support, the lifeblood of many Democratic candidates. To now say that NAFTA was not a Republican priority that was passed over the dead bodies of the Democrats simply shows how very, very little you know about anything. Perhaps you need to learn something of nuance. Idiot.
Which explains the smashing success of Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean. No, it shows that I understand that NAFTA is more of a regional issue than a partisan issue. BTW, except for Vince Foster, who died? Why are you so angry? I'm just having a discussion. I mean, I've pointed out a number of pieces of data here. That's all.
Data my ass, you dogbrained piece of goat vomit; you are the biggest horse's ass I have ever run accross. You care nothing about "facts" which is good because your obvious lack of either an Education or functional brain cells would render them useless anyway. Better you should continue to fill your brain with the kind of hate-filled biased bullsh!t that you spew all over the place than to risk having your fvcking head collapse. As for having a "discussion" think I've made it clear that I have no interest in discussing anything with a contemptible vermin like you.