h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry, that should read "majority SUPPORT", not "majority report"
Oops.

>>do you have some sources that would support this statement?: "I doubt if sanctions are the main cause as it is supposed to be children that are suffering most from sanctions."<<

I have not hard facts on this, just the impression I get from reading the news. However I did discover that the infant mortality rate is 57.16 per 1000 live births This is high, even for that part of the World. There are places with higher mortality rates, mainly in Africa where famine is endemic. Infant mortality only covers children under 12 months.

The birth rate is 34.2 per 1000 in a population of 24 million. This represents 820,000 births per year. Of these 46,465 will die before reaching 12 months. Multiply that figure by 5 and you only come up with 232,327 deaths of under fives and 177.622 surviving in any five year period. Not very scientific, but it might indicate that the 500,000 figure of under fives dying seem is a bit on the high side. The only way the 500,000 could be achieved is if the death rate increased by 100% due to sanctions and other means. If 500,000 did die from sanctions, it makes the age distribution look even worse.

The under 15 age group represent 41.1% or 9,852,993 and 59.9% for the 15-64 age group. This large disparity between the age groups cannot be explained by sanctions or even the low age expectation. There has to be some other reason why there are nearly as many children as there are adults. There are similar figures for The West Bank and Gaza strip. The only conclusion that can be had from that is that adults are dying quicker than they should be.

The Population, birth rate and infant mortality rates were take from The CIA Fact Files.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Stuart

OK, this conversation is way too long to know if anyone has made this point before so forgive me if I am repeating someone else's post.

Anyway, the media are reporting all this in a negative light and people are getting their information from the media. I think the media should be impartial but it obviously doesn't and I feel it can go slink up a tree but...I digress...

I haven't heard very much, because frankly I don't care what happens, but nothing I have heard has drawn a comparison to the time before WW2 and Hitler. Everyone is so anti-war it seems but why? If we leave SH alone, he will gain weapons of mass destruction and then we will have a much harder job over throwing him than right now. How does this compare with before WW2?

For like 5 years before WW2, there were MAJOR signs that Hitler was going to be trouble but everyone kept making allowances for him and saying "no we don't want another war". Because of all these allowances the second world war was brutal. If they'd stopped Hitler right from the get go then it may never have happened. He obviously felt he could get away with anything and he did for so long. SH is exactly the same, if we don't stop him now it will be much more costly and devastating to do it later.

Here is the thing, Iraq may, or may not have the weapons of mass destruction but it has at least some of the know-how. So what is a psychotic dictator gonna do when some superpower comes to obliterate, sorry liberate, the country? Well I imagine that Al-Quieda would be very happy to recieve all that know how etc.

My and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the infidel.

Just a thought Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

An interesting article in today's FT... I'd link to the web edition but I'm not a subscriber...

It's an opinion piece that argues that the oil motive for war would be uneconomic for those undertaking it. It also argues that defending the oil supply could be a legitimate reason (which is something I brought up in jest and got berated for ages ago.)

I don't like the "moral" approach that defending the supply is worth fighting a war over, and anyway that's ground we've covered before back when I was mucking about on this thread. However, I am intrigued by the argument that the US government and oil companies aren't likely to profit much if Iraqi oil is misappropriated.

Comments?

Yeah, Hitler invaded other countries and the Allies let him get away with it. After supporing Saddam's war with Iran, the West decided they didn't like him and so carpet bombed his nation when Saddam's army invaded Kuwait--so that isn't really much of a paralell to Hitler.

"I really do not know much about you other then you are Native American, Attend college, and you write well. I am saddened that your interation with all 'americans' {I take from your writing that you consider yourself a member of a sovereign nation that is located in the United States of America. If I am mistaken my apologies} has been so unpleasant."

I'm saddened too, Starbirth. Do you ever wonder why things have been unpleasant? Well, nevermind, that's not the topic of this discussion although it might be if more people saw the parallels.

"Analiese, Again I am sorry your opinion of americans is so downcast. However Americans are not really any different then people from any nation from around the world.

After all thats where they have all come from."

Once again, Starbirth, I'm sorry too. Do you suppose this is nothing but a bad attitude?

I know these people have come from all over. Many have come because they think America is the "Land of Opportunity". And they are correct. There is much wealth in America. But these same people do not apparently ask why that is so.

Many have come from countries where the wealth has flown away. Where did it go? Maybe a hint would be that rather than following the opportunity they are actually following the cash flow?

Please consider that, because in America itself, Americans are wealthy because indians are poor. And indians are poor because they have been dispossessed of land and resources which Americans have used and continue to use to secure credit and expand into world markets.

The same sort of thing is happening and has happened for quite awhile in the so-called Third World. Land and resources are alienated from the people. The people are forced to seek employment in the cities. The wages provided are extremely low so the multinational corporate businesses flourish with low labor and resource costs and high prices on the other end. This is how merchantilism, which we might call commercial imperialism, works.

So the people getting those low wages look longingly at America the land of opportunity not realizing in many cases the reason they must look longingly at America.

No, Americans are no different from other people, just as you say, except they benefit from other people's deprivation. That's why in much of the world they are reviled even though people might not know why exactly.

That in itself can be a huge source of frustration. If you are the poor of the world, you might know where the problem lies. You might know that the people who are part of the problem don't seem to realize it, might even be innocent after a fashion, but your pain is not mitigated by their innocence or ignorance and it is in fact further aggravated by their arrogance when they presume to assert their fictitious right to police the world in order to protect the concessions they use to exploit you.

Maybe, if you think about it a little, you can appreciate why me and others have this downcast view of America. And maybe if you take it seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand as if it were some psychotic fantasy, you would come to understand why, in the present context of the discussion, this war is only going to perpetuate the injustices that have already been committed and augment them with more injustice.

Or maybe you will, like many others here, formulate fine, logical and reasonable pretexts for doing bad things. That's probably a hard choice but that's what we're actually talking about here, unfortunately.

Speaking of infant mortality rates, does the US still have one of the highest infant mortality rates among industrialized nations?

"The birth rate is 34.2 per 1000 in a population of 24 million. This represents 820,000 births per year. Of these 46,465 will die before reaching 12 months. Multiply that figure by 5 and you only come up with 232,327 deaths of under fives and 177.622 surviving in any five year period. Not very scientific, but it might indicate that the 500,000 figure of under fives dying seem is a bit on the high side. The only way the 500,000 could be achieved is if the death rate increased by 100% due to sanctions and other means. If 500,000 did die from sanctions, it makes the age distribution look even worse."

I don't know how they arrived at that figure of 500,000 dead due to sanctions, but it carries some credibility for me because it came from a UN agency. I think I see a way that your statistics could still fit. What year or range of years was that birth rate supposed to cover? Those 500,000 dead were supposed to be caused by sanctions (started in 1991?) up to about 1997 at the time they came out with that statistic (if I remember correctly), so a person would have to look at the birth and death rates from 1991 through 1997. Maybe infant mortality has decreased in recent years, so it might not give an accurate comparison if you applied the recent mortality rate across past years.

Hi Geoff ,

You said earlier:
'I would suggest that an inspectorate capable of searching Iraq without the cooperation of the Iraqi leadership would need to number in the thousands, and troops to defend/enforce inspections would need to be in the tens of thousands. Would Iraq allow such numbers in? I doubt it.'

Such an inspection force like I suggested would be less than the invasion force assembling in the Gulf right now. If given a choice, ultimately (after some fun and games) he will agree to those inspections because it will save his own bacon. An invasion won't.


'It's an opinion piece that argues that the oil motive for war would be uneconomic for those undertaking it. It also argues that defending the oil supply could be a legitimate reason'

Actually, I can see that. If the Governments of the West came clean and admitted that they wanted to secure the oilfields of Iraq for economic reasons then they would have a much stronger case. The aim would be to shore up the world's economy by guaranteiing for a good few years the security of one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. They could argue that jobs would be saved and made and that they markets would be less volatile with this knowledge. I would still be against it but it would be more legitimate and honest.


One of Bush's and Blair's biggest victories so far is the phantom shifting argument. Charles Kennedy mentioned this in Parliament the other day. All the debate so far has been of THEIR terms, using their language and boundaries. Hence the lack of alternative (it's either inspections or invasions). They switch between:

A) preemptive strikes, to

B) security councel resolution breaches.

One moment they're invading because Saddam will fire a WMD at them if they don't (there is NO evidence that he will). Then, all of a sudden, they are pointing at the ONLY thing that they have proof of: 'material breach'. There isn't a link between the two. Before you do something as drastic as an invasion you HAVE to prove it beyond doubt, anything less is not good enough. They want us to talk in their terms, following their side unwittingly when they switch arguments, and for the most part, even the anti-war side, do just this. This and every converation about Iraq is in Bush's terms. Let's try and get beyond this blinkered view. There are alternatives to war. War is NOT inevitable.

The question is not whether Iraq is in material breach or not, but *whether they are going to attack us or not?* For that is the EXACT STATED REASON for the proposed war. The reason for any war is NOT if they are breaching UN resolutions, certain governments have made it seem like that ('spin') to try to prove the unprovable, switching the debate from A) to B) because A) (the stated reason remember) has no evidence whatsoever.

Ste

umm, ...getting back on the subject of 'opinions on the war'...

Some of the signs carried by some of the protesters at
the recent peace marchs in the USA:


I'd rather my President MAKE LOVE - NOT WAR in the oval office.

Drunken frat boy drives country into ditch

Bush/Cheney: Malice in Blunderland

Let's bomb Texas, they have oil too.

How did our oil get under their sand?

If you can't pronounce it, don't bomb it.

Daddy, can I start the war now?

1000 points of light and one dim bulb.

Sacrifice our SUV's, not our children.

Preemptive impeachment.

No George, I said Mac Attack.

It's the stupid economy.

Stop the Bushit.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld: the asses of evil.

$1 billion a day to kill people -- what a bargain.

Consume -- Consume -- Bomb -- Bomb -- Consume --Consume

Disarm Bush too.

Big brother isn't coming -- he's already here.

Empires fall.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
(Gandhi).

Impeach the squatters.

Mainstream white guys for peace. (Sign held by three
mainstream-looking white guys)

Hans Blix -- look over here.

Let Exxon send their own troops.

Destroy Florida. [It could happen again]

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

We can't afford to rule the world.

War is so 20th century!

9-11-01: 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.

Drop Bush not bombs.

I asked for universal health care and all I got was
this lousy stealth bomber.

America's problems won't be solved in Iraq.

War is not a family value.

Colorfully dressed drag queen carrying a sign that
says: I am the bomb.

Picture of the peace symbol: back by popular demand.

A picture of Bush with a red-stained upper lip: Got
blood?

A picture of Bush saying "Why should I care what the
American people think? They didn't vote for me."

A picture of Bush saying "Ask me about my lobotomy."

Beneath a picture of a menacing soldier pointing his
rifle/bayonet toward the viewer: Say it! One Nation under God. Say it!

What would Jesus bomb?

A village inTexas is still missing its idiot

"However, I am intrigued by the argument that the US government and oil companies aren't likely to profit much if Iraqi oil is misappropriated."

It doesn't need to be a direct profit from oil sales to the pockets of US officials in order for this to be a corrupt land grab. Just look at what they're planning after the regime change: an unknown number of years of military occupation government, controlled by the US. How can you occupy and control another nation and not benefit from its resources? I don't mean stealing the oil directly, I mean ensuring that transnational corporations friendly to the US and allies would get the best deals, the lowest tariffs or taxes on anything imported or exported from Iraq. Enemies of the US might be blocked from buying and selling.

It's not as direct as some opponents of the war try to make it sound, as if Bush and his family would pocket millions from Iraqi oil. It's indirect, like the way some corporations are given subsidies and bail-outs and corporate welfare, but they're not exactly stealing money straight out of the tax refunds of US citizens. The effect is the same, but since our elected officials approved it, it's not exactly theft. In polite society, we use the euphemism "subsidy" instead of theft. In a similar way, the US government will not be "stealing" Iraqi oil for US companies after we occupy Iraq, just controlling the distribution, ensuring it doesn't end up in the hands of terrorist nations. I'm not sure what euphemism they'll use, but something along those lines.

"I'm not stealing from the cookie jar, Mommy. I was taking an advance on my allowance in the form of cookies."

They won't be stealing Iraqi oil, they'll just be administering its proper distribution to the companies whose contributions put them in office.

*Once again, Starbirth, I'm sorry too. Do you suppose this is nothing but a bad attitude? *

There was no hidden meaning in what I wrote to you. I was speaking to you honestly. In your enthusiasm to to promote a cause that you passionately believe in you your might find yourself alienating those who would be allies by synoptic view.



*Please consider that, because in America itself, Americans are wealthy because indians are poor. And indians are poor because they have been dispossessed of land and resources which Americans have used and continue to use to secure credit and expand into world markets. *

I know well what atrocities have been perputrated on native americans. That seems to be a very broad statement. What I would ask you is who do you define as these wealthy americans. Any and all? Americans of a certain race or creed? Americans who have been in this country for 5-10-20-50-200 years? I realize this is not on topic but ask if you would indulge me this one time.

Some of those slogans are a bit dubious, for example "Let Exxon send their own troops" completely misses the point. They'd probably love to.

>>Speaking of infant mortality rates, does the US still have one of the highest infant mortality rates among industrialized nations?<<

Probably does, certainly higher than most. For the USA, Canada, UK and Japan the figures are 6.69, 4.95, 5.45, 3.84. These figures are based on 2002 estimated. Infant mortality rates are used as an indicator of the general health of the nation.

The 500,000 figure was probably a cumlative total. This makes compatisons difficult and hard to verify against other data, but coming from the UN it is probably as accurate a figure your going to get.

Stuart

"However, I am intrigued by the argument that the US government and oil companies aren't likely to profit much if Iraqi oil is misappropriated."


Look at resolution 687:

"16. Reaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;"

"18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a Commission that will administer the fund;"




Not only will oil companies profit from getting access to a new supply, the countries themselves will profit by getting compensated for costs of the 1st (and 2nd) war. So all of a sudden, Bush will appear to miraculously balance the budget, spend money on health care, education etc., ....and all because of the war.

Can we see why he is in such a rush for war?

? I had already read post 4917 thanks and I have spent many a long hour catching up on the backlog in between my postings on this thread since it started. I may be the most obtuse person in London, perhaps on the planet, but I am still unsure as to why there is this war of words between people on different continents who appear to voice the same opinion but phrase it differently.

I can understand the use of the phrase fighting for peace - it is an oxymoron, but it is a phrase that is used by pacifists all the same. I would not take it as meaning that the person using it thinks that what Bush is planning is a right and just cause - and certainly not in the context that it has appeared on this thread.

As I said before, it is really unhelpful to brand people of european descent in countries like NZ, SA, Australia etc as racist. I would not dream of accusing all Americans of being as stupid and dangerous as their president. After all, the majority didn't vote for him. Accusations of racsim aimed at anyone person or country are extremely harmful, and the assumption of anyones racial origins (especially over the internet) when you have never met/seen them can only lead to more problems. If I were accused in such a way, seemingly just because of the country I lived in, I would be pretty antagonistic towards you too.

When reading the backlog on this thread, I haven't actually been able to find the original postings you perceive as incendiary, it seems more to me that misunderstandings of tone and vocabulary have caused a mini war on this thread between people that actually agree on the issues surrounding Iraq.

Can't we all just get over this? How the hell can we hope for peace when we can't even be civil in cyberspace? Please just shake hands and play nicely.

RE: The peace banners

"Mainstream white guys for peace. (Sign held by three
mainstream-looking white guys)"

That is my favourite by a long shot

Analiese:

I've posted this to you before: I'm white and you're right. It's very hard to realize that one's relatively good situation is the result of past exploitation; it's harder to realize that someone else's relatively bad situation is the result of the same exploitation; in short, that one's present good luck corelates directly with some one else's bad luck.

I can remember having this discusion with a third generation Canadian and he could accept that maybe the son of a Japanese store owner who had had his business confiscated in World War II might have a right to compensation, but before I even suggested it he yelled "but it's not the same for the Indians!" At the time he was living on Pappaschase land that the Government had given to his grandparents.

So, again, Analiese, I think you're right about the situation in North America and the world, and I think a whole lot of people need a wake up call about that situation. I also think that the situation in the world is a lot more depressing and intractable than most people realize.

anhaga

"Yeah, Hitler invaded other countries and the Allies let him get away with it. After supporing Saddam's war with Iran, the West decided they didn't like him and so carpet bombed his nation when Saddam's army invaded Kuwait--so that isn't really much of a paralell to Hitler"

They didn't suddenly fall out with him and then use Kuwait as an excuse to attack him, they attacked him *because* he invaded Kuwait.

I don't think the "situation" is an exact parallel to Hitler, either. Certainly Iraq is not a patch, military wise, on the Germany of the late 1930s. I think the point is that Hitler demonstrated the failure of "diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy". Without anything to back it up, why pay it any heed at all?