iraqi doctors speak out on deaths of childern during period of sanctions

lord of the mark · May 23, 2003, 10:26

'Under the sanctions regime, "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed," said Ibn Al-Baladi's chief resident, Dr. Hussein Shihab. "Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money. But instead, he spent it on his palaces."

The U.S. government and others long have blamed Hussein's spending habits for the poor health of Iraqis and their children. For years, the Iraqi government, some Western officials and a vocal anti-sanctions movement said UN restrictions on Iraqi imports and exports were at fault.

"Saddam Hussein, he's the murderer, not the UN," said Dr. Azhar Abdul Khadem, a resident at the Al-Alwiya maternity hospital in Baghdad.

Doctors said they were forced to refrigerate dead babies in hospital morgues until authorities were ready to gather the little corpses for monthly parades in coffins on the roofs of taxis for the benefit of Iraqi state television and visiting journalists. The parents were ordered to wail with grief - no matter how many weeks had passed since their babies had died - and to shout to the cameras that the sanctions had killed their children, the doctors said. Afterward, the parents would be rewarded with food or money.

The propaganda campaign was organized by the ministries of health and information and by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the mukhabarat, according to the doctors and a former agent in another of Iraq's security agencies, the General Security Service.'

the full article is here

newsday article

Arrian · May 23, 2003, 10:55

It's nice to hear that somebody knows where to place the majority of the blame. Unfortunately, however, the "average Iraqi" isn't a doctor - educated, familiar with how the sanctions worked - and therefore probably believes that all the suffering was the fault of the US.

-Arrian

GePap · May 23, 2003, 10:59

After the food for oil program came into line in 96, all the international agencies came in with much lower numbers of infant deaths, malnutrition, so forth and so on.

Quote:

Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money.

Strange phrase there. Rich country? And before "Food for Oil", wouldn't that be called smuugling?

lord of the mark · May 23, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
After the food for oil program came into line in 96, all the international agencies came in with much lower numbers of infant deaths, malnutrition, so forth and so on.

Quote:

Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money.

Strange phrase there. Rich country? And before "Food for Oil", wouldn't that be called smuugling?

'"I am one of the doctors who was forced to tell something wrong - that these children died from the fault of the UN," Shihab said, sitting in his hospital's staff room with his deputy, another doctor and one of the hospital's administrators. As recently as just before the start of the war, he said, he had told visiting journalists and peace activists that the sanctions were to blame for the high death rate among infants at his hospital.'

AS RECENTLY AS JUST BEFORE THE START OF THE WAR - the propaganda campaign continued for the entire 13 years of sanctions, well after oil for food program started.

Edan · May 23, 2003, 11:26

Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children!

GePap · May 23, 2003, 11:40

But no one believed it since the late 90's, since things were visibly better due to Food for oil.

Last i will say about this article.

lord of the mark · May 23, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
But no one believed it since the late 90's, since things were visibly better due to Food for oil.

Last i will say about this article.

it was prominently mentioned in Bin ladens statement agains the "jews and crusaders" Apparently it was widely believed in the muslim world. Its one of the reasons "they hate us" I daresay i've heard american leftists repeat it many times since the mid-90's. Too bad they werent as informed as you. The propaganda worked anyway.

MichaeltheGreat · May 23, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money.

Strange phrase there. Rich country? And before "Food for Oil", wouldn't that be called smuugling?

If you're sitting on the second biggest oil reserves in the world, and can make deals to get that oil out off the books, you sure ain't a poor country.

"Smuggling"

In the middle east? In Iraq?

They probably invented the concept.

Lefty Scaevola · May 23, 2003, 22:29

I guess some posters were not paying attention a month or so ago when the USA shut down the two pipelines sending "smuggled" (bypassing the UN oil for food rules) to Syria.

Lincoln · May 23, 2003, 22:53

They had a feature on NBC news tonight about the torture chambers in Iraq. Thank God that the mad-man of Iraq is out of power now. I would not wish that torture or suffering on anyone but I really would not mind too much if some of the anti US crowd were hung up by both hands that were tied behind their backs for about 5 minutes. Maybe their sympathy would be properly directed if they experienced one molecule of the suffering aleviated by the liberation.

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 09:45

This should be bumped, it needs to be known.

loinburger · May 24, 2003, 09:51

It might help if it had a less ambiguous title -- I ignored it at first, thinking it was another "Americans are responsible for the deaths of a billion Iraqi children" rant.

Then again, maybe the ambiguity is a benefit. :shrugs:

Urban Ranger · May 24, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
'Under the sanctions regime, "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed," said Ibn Al-Baladi's chief resident, Dr. Hussein Shihab. "Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money. But instead, he spent it on his palaces."

The question is, how would he know? Being a lowly doctor, he certainly couldn't have access to such secret information.

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 12:42

Maybe it had something to do with all the palaces Saddam was building all the time.

Urban Ranger · May 24, 2003, 12:43

It seems like most of his palaces were built before GWI.

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 12:47

How could he build any more if it was that tight?

You know how he lived -- we all do. It just dosen't jibe with the whole 'starving from sanctions' bit.

Spiffor · May 24, 2003, 12:53

Even though I think the doctor is spinning out a little about how Saddam used all his money for the military (I suppose it is the common Iraqi knowledge he's repeating, and common knowledge is usually exaggerated), I trust him on the corpse-parade thing. That alone is disgusting

.

I think it is a huge stretch to tell everything could have been fine if it wasn't for evil Saddam (the "we could have got all the medication we needed" thing), but I don't doubt Saddam has deprived his population of basic services such as food and drugs for his agenda.

However, the UN sanctions made it impossible for Iraq to rebuild an independant agriculture and an autonomous medication industry (for basic products). And that has been bad for the parts of Iraq which weren't well connected to the trade routes

Urban Ranger · May 24, 2003, 12:53

The flip side is, of course, if there were no sanctions, the children wouldn't have suffered and died.

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 13:13

The flip flip side, is if Saddam hadn't thumbed his nose at the UN, there would be no sanctions.

Jac de Molay · May 24, 2003, 15:04

Even if that's the case, innocent people were made to suffer based on the obstinance of one man. I don't think that's fair or humane regardless of what saddam did and didn't do.

The Mad Monk · May 24, 2003, 15:25

You're right, of course.

We should have invaded years ago.

Edan · May 24, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk We should have invaded years ago.

Or finished the job the first time around.

Urban Ranger · May 25, 2003, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The flip flip side, is if Saddam hadn't thumbed his nose at the UN, there would be no sanctions.

Lets not forget the sanction was mostly an US idea, even after it has been shown repeatedly that sanction doesn't work as intended.

Ming · May 25, 2003, 00:33

And let's not forget why the sanctions were put in place in the first place

Urban Ranger · May 25, 2003, 00:48

Putting a useless yet antagonising measure in place is certainly indicative of the sort of thinking going on in the US admin at the time.

Lord Merciless · May 25, 2003, 04:28

The sanctions were put in place to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his forces. In this aspect, the sanctions were remarkably successful.

The dilemma with the sanction is:
- We can't really allow Saddam to rearm himself after making him our mortal enemy.

- The sanction was hurting Iraqi people pretty badly, even though Saddam bore the brunt of the responsibility.