Here are exerpts of a 1992 report by Ramsey Clark and others claiming thousands of ongoing Iraqi deaths due to UN imposed sanctions. In fact,
Of course the reference to war is Desert Shield and Desert Storm. You may recall the deep concern for the scarcity of baby formula etc. Could it be that the Coalition is actually now saving a net number of lives and babies in Iraq?
So instead of like, just ending the sanctions and the consequent baby deaths, because the inspectors showed that there were no WMDs, the logical thing to do was to start bombimg and kill loads more babies, and argue afterwards that the bombing killed fewer than the starvation. That’s your argument?
I think he meant that bombs kill them quicker then starvation. No matter if they are killed at the spot or roasted alive and die a few horrible painful days later… It is always better then a painful slow starvation, no?
Salaam. A
I was on the brink of proposing that the SDMB adopt a new rule: no threads about killing babies, ever, but then Desmostylus chimes in with the best post of the day. It seems that even a crappy thread can spark instances of succinct brilliance.
“Coalition” [snort].
No, the Americans are not saving any lives or any babies by bombing the shit out of them for no fucking reason.
It’s true that innocents get killed in any war, and that’s exactly the reason that war is virtually never justified. That’s the reason that non-defensive attacks on on other countries are forbidden by the civilized world.
Since the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and illegal in the first place, the concurrent slaughter of innocents cannot be shrugged off or (insincerely) lamented as an unfortunate consequense of war.
We killed babies for no fucking reason. Believe it. Own it. Deal with it.
First of all you are a fucking moron.
Second, as I said, I don´t know the exact figures. What I do know is that 20 million russians were killed, that the german caualties were 10 million and that the Nazis murdered another 10 million (or 11) thus I arrived at the “at least 40 million” figure.
Fourth, and considering that babies and old men are the weakest members of society, I concluded that a high percentage of those killed were babies.-
Fifth, I don’t stand behind my statement a 100%, I never said I did.-
Sixth, I don’t understand the reason for your rude remark, don’t you have something more interesting to do than abuse your fellow dopers for details.
Seventh, you are a fucking moron, I know that it was my first point but it’s always worth repeating.-
Thank you, Exhibit A.
I’m actually fascinated that nobody has bothered to ask Kel why he’s asking this question.
Were you looking to stir up shit, or do you legitimately want an answer to this? And if so, why?
I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt that he/she was simply unfamiliar with the limitations of “smart” bombs and how difficult if not impossible it is to avoid civilian casualties.
It seems to me that if Americans were invaded by a foreign country and their babies and children were killed for the delight of the Shock-and-Awers, we’d be screaming that those foreigners were a bunch of animals. It wouldn’t matter how many lollipops the smiling soldiers passed out on the street afterwards.
No one would be saying, so sanctimonously: “Babies die in wars. Big deal.”
The Iraqis did not ask for war. They did not agree to sacrifice their babies, homes, and livelihoods for this sullied War on Terrorism.
The killing of innocents is unavoidable in lopsided wars like the one we’ve fought. And there will be consequences for what we’ve done over there. I just hope I’m not around when the chickens finally come home to roost.
I did, more or less, as soon as it was moved to the Pit.
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is the one who doubts whether any babies were killed, or whether he wants the info to dispute someone else who thinks that none were. But since he has not returned to explain or clarify, I’m beginning to assume that this must be his own question.
Since Kel hasn’t been back in nearly 24 hours to clarify his OP, I wonder if this just another drive-by “let’s you and him fight” thread or an “Americans are baby-killers” thread. Or does Kel really have a serious question?
Very profound and something a lot of Americans miss. The Iraqis did not ask for this war. Which is why, Bush had to market it as a war to make America safe and sadly, it succeeded. First, a lot of idiots thought this was part of the war on terror, and now, they think it is part of the war on terror and that they have liberated the Iraqis. They didn’t fucking ask for this war, fuckheads.
Well, He’s sort of BAD on different levels.
Layers man, layers.
I asked because someone I know said that they refused to believe that the US military killed a baby in Iraq until he was given proof. Sadly, even if I were to provide him with a picture of a dead Iraqi baby he said he wouldn’t believe it because the media lies.
You might ask this person if he believes in the magical baby-avoiding bombs Colibri postulates.
Why do people get all worked up over babies? Is a baby dying somehow more important or more depressing to you guys than a 15 year old. Or a 25 year old? Why?
Is a 6 month old baby even self aware? Does he understand the concept of “life” or “living” yet? I think it’s worse to kill someone who does.
Then there’s old people who are just going to die soon anyway.
You can flame me if you want. Or better yet, you could show some intelligence and explain to me why a baby’s death makes you more teary-eyed than any other person who has not lived a full life and/or not yet reproduced.
A baby’s death has never left children fatherless or orphaned. A baby’s death was never the tragic end to his hopes and dreams. He hasn’t had any yet.
It wasn’t the end of his parents’ hopes and dreams either. If their dreams involved children, they can make another baby to fulfill them.
Sorry, maybe I’m just really, really, insensitive and unemotional. Can you explain logically to me why it’s a bigger deal???
Yeah, all those baby-starving Americans. I mean, Saddam was insisting we use Iraq’s resources to feed the babies, but we insisted on building more palaces for him :rolleyes:
Then stop being one.
Spoken like someone who’s never been a parent.
And if you can’t see anything wrong with killing innocent civilians of any age, you must be a neo-conservative.