Wanneer excuses van de Verenigde Schurkenstaten?

[Verkracht door Dies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Tijdelijk protest van extremisten. Niet aan toegeven werkt op termijn. IRA is ook maar een schaduw van wat het ooit was dankzij de consistente harde aanpak van de Britse regering. It works, it just takes time.

Dat het werk, daar twijfelt LAT! geen seconde aan.
We kunnen trouwens heel goed zien in Israel hoe goed dat werkt bij arabieren.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door LAT!

Dat het werk, daar twijfelt LAT! geen seconde aan.
We kunnen trouwens heel goed zien in Israel hoe goed dat werkt bij arabieren.

Inderdaad. Na twee jaar harde aanpak zijn de terroristische aanvallen gedaald van een per dag tot een per twee maanden.

Als Israel ze nog eens tien jaar bij de keel houdt, maar deze keer zonder verzwakkende verdragen en terugtrekkingen, dan gaan die moordenaarsbendes op termijn dezelfde weg op als de IRA. Het is daar ook niet op twee jaar gelukt, hé?

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Woutertje

Door de eeuwen héén hebben we gemerkt dat de communisten steeds andersdenkenden hebben vervolgd, al dan niet uitgemoord
".

En dat is nou net wat de Verenigde Staten vandaag doen.
Overal ter wereld diegenen die anders denken gaan plat bombarderen.
Dus ik begrijp uw houding niet goed.
Als je een hekel hebt aan communisten omdat ze andersdenkenden vervolgden, moet je vandaag toch ook een hekel hebben aan de VS???
Tenminste, als je consequent bent.
Maar laat dat nou net een eigenschap zijn die ik niet direct bij jou verwacht.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Tenminste, als je consequent bent.
Maar laat dat nou net een eigenschap zijn die ik niet direct bij jou verwacht.

Pot , ketel.

[Aangebrande Phönix]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Woutertje

Allende was duidelijk een marxist. Zijn ideeën voor collectivisatie en nationalisatie van de economie waren duidelijk dat hij een 2de Cuba wou neerpoten in Latijns_Amerika. Zijn presidentschap was nog steeds in een beginfase om zomaar te kunnen vaststellen dat hij effectief van Chili een modelstaat wou maken. Door de eeuwen héén hebben we gemerkt dat de communisten steeds andersdenkenden hebben vervolgd, al dan niet uitgemoord en wat er van Allende ook gezegd kan worden hij was een goede vriend aan huis bij de Cubaanse dictator Castro onder wiens regime nu nog steeds duizenden Cubanen vast zitten in heropvoedingskampen en gevangenissen. Ik ken mensen die naar Cuba zijn gereist en idd als toerist kan men genieten van de prachtige hotels, de mooie stranden, de heerlijke Havana Club Rum allemaal neergepoot door de "proletarische "KP-maffia maar eens buiten de toeristencentra ziet men de armoede , de afgekalfaterde huizen, de roestige oude VS-wagens , de gammele bootjes en dan ziet men het ware gezicht van het prachtige "arbeidersparadijs Cuba".

De ene helft is suggestief en leidt nergens naar. Zeker geen rechtvaardiging van inmenging. Als u de redenering doortrekt moeten ogenblikkelijk Brazilië en Turkije binnengevallen worden om de regeringen ten val te brengen. Lula heeft immers blijk gegeven van communistische sympathieën en moslimregeringen zijn altijd al moorddadige en reactionaire régimes geweest. (Brazilië is een zwak voorbeeld, dat is toe te geven. Maar in de geest van uw redenering is ook de Turkse regering gevaarlijk. Dat valt moeilijker te ontkrachten.)

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Woutertje

Idd iedereen heeft fouten gemaakt zowel Amerikanen als Europeanen maar toch beschouwen sommige Europeanen zich nog steeds als beschaafd...

En de amerikanen beschouwen zich niet als beschaafd? De europeanen proberen trouwens die fouten niet meer te maken terwijl de VS ze blijkbaar opzettelijk nog een paar keer wil maken.

De communist Allende was beter dan....Dankzij Pinochet is Chili een westerse goed draaiende economie en géén derde wereldland zoals Cuba.

Ach de fot ligt bij zowel allende als de VS die er alles aan deed om de regering te ondermijnen. Dat hield in dat ze alle steun aan chili opzegde en dat ze de Wereld bank tegenhield om leningen en dergelijke te geven ook dit heeft enorm bijgedragen tot de ondergang van de economie. Om nog niet te beginnen over de talloze "covert ops" die de VS uitvoerde om de regering te ondermijnen.

Enkele uitspraken van de tijd :

Henry Kissinger: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

U.S. ambassador to Chile : "Not a nut or a bolt will reach Chile.... We will do all in our power to condemn Chileans to utmost poverty"

Allende was de democratisch verkozen president, pinochet was een dictator. Ik dacht dat bloeddorstige dictotors (zoals allende er een was) moesten verwijdert worden en niet aan demacht geholpen worden?

Cuba is trouwens geen derde wereld land dat is nog een stukje propaganda waar je intrapt. Cuba heeft een gelijke kindersterfte en levensversverwachting dan de VS . Niet slecht voor en land dat al decenia onder een embargo gebukt gaat.

Mag ik u trouwens mededelen dat Frankrijk onlangs nog zware kritiek te verduren heeft gekregen van de Verenigde Staten omwille van het hoofddoekenverbod en de schending van de vrijheid van godsdienst. Wie pest hier dan de moslims????

Er is helemaal geen hoofdoeken verbod in frankrijk. Er is een verbod voor religieuze symbolen op bepaalde plaatsen. Niks te maken met "moslim pesten" . Dat is ook helemaal geen schending van de vrijheid van godsdienst iedereen is nog steeds vrij gelijk welke godsdienst uit te oefenen dat is meer propaganda waar je intrapt.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

In 2003 was Irak volgens u eindelijk "bijna volledig in orde" met voorwaarden voor een resolutie uit 1991. Met andere woorden, zo ongeveer 12 jaar na de resolutie, wanneer het Amerikaanse leger al op het punt staat om u te komen onttronen, dan gaat ge efkens een efforke doen, net zoals ge het voordien al vijfendertig keer gelapt hebt om te beloven, dan even te doen om daarna terug te vallen in het niet medewerken. Too little too late noem ik dat.

Maakt niks uit iraq werkte mee, dat het onder dreiging was van een invasie was wel duidleijk maar dat maakt niks uit.

Dat de VS dat niet had gedacht en ze nu miljarden voor niks uitgegeven hebben is het probleem van de VS. Dat ze dan toch maar beslist hebben dat desondanks dat iraq volledig meewerkte toch hun invasie door te zetten is hun fout.

Maar uiteindelijk doet dat er geen bal toe. Er wordt een overeenkomst gemaakt tussen twee partijen aangaande voorwaarden voor een staakt het vuren. 1 Partij houdt zich niet aan de voorwaarden, en bekent dat ook door een resolutie te tekenen die letterlijk stelt dat ze in gebreke is. Onmiddellijk gevolg is dat het staakt het vuren wordt opgeheven.

Je vergeet dat niet de VS die partij was maar de VN. Het was dus aan de VN om iraq in 2003 in gebreke te stellen en het was aan de VN om een nieuwe resolutie op te stellen waarin het uitdrukkelijk stond dat er een invasie mocht zijn.

De VS wou dat eerst doen maar toen het snel duidelijk werd dat ondanks het gelobby en gedreig van de VS dat ze zelfs niet de popular vote gingen halen werd dat voorstel snel ingetrokken.

Ik sta open voor uw alternatieve oplossing, die geen embargo, nog een oorlog inhoudt.

Ten eerste de VN meer tijd geven voor een grondige controle van iraq. Enkele maanden van volledige medewerking (zoals die er was) en de VN had zowat alles kunnen controleren. Dan een versoepeling van het embargo . Wel zaken nodig voor het alledaagse leven geen die kunnen gebruikte worden voor militaire zaken.

I agree, Frankrijk en Rusland moeten gedisciplineerd worden.

Frankrijk heeft nooit na 91 wapens verkocht aan iraq .

Als u vandaag uw vrouw vermoord, dan mag ik u vandaag straffen, maar morgen niet meer? Genocide heeft geen verjaringsdatum. Voor u wel?

Jij was bezig dat saddam een dreiging was anno 2003 ik vraag daar bewijs van en jij begint over de jaren 80. Anno 2003 had saddam zelfs geen controle meer over de koerden . Dus nogmaals toon eens aan dat saddam meer burgers doden in 2001 of 2002 dan de coalitie in de oorlog

Over het legale aspect ben ik niet totaal verkeerd, jij geeft echter wel blijk van bijzonder weinig kennis van zaken.

je zegt zelf dat de advocatuur er nog niet uit is maar jij weet het al

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Tijdelijk protest van extremisten. Niet aan toegeven werkt op termijn. IRA is ook maar een schaduw van wat het ooit was dankzij de consistente harde aanpak van de Britse regering. It works, it just takes time.

Lees jij ooit wat je schrijft? Ken je wel iets van de geschiedenis buiten die van de VS?

IRA was sterk tot de britten (na bloody sunday remember?) besloten dat de harde aanpak (complete bezetting) niet opbracht . Ze gingen dan werken met de noord ieren zelf en met geheime missies . Pas dan is het IRA beginnen verliezen omdat de gemiddelde ier zag dat de repressie grotendeels verdwenen was.

Israel probeert al 60 jaar de problemen met de harde hand op te lossen en al 60 jaar lang sterven er israelies en arabieren. Ach ja wat een oplossing.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Woutertje

Zijn presidentschap was nog steeds in een beginfase om zomaar te kunnen vaststellen dat hij effectief van Chili een modelstaat wou maken. Door de eeuwen héén hebben we gemerkt dat de communisten steeds andersdenkenden hebben vervolgd, al dan niet uitgemoord

Eeuwen? Hoe lang denk je dat het communisme bestaat?

En allende heeft nooit mensen uitgemorod, pinochet daarentegen ...

Ik ken mensen die naar Cuba zijn gereist en idd als toerist kan men genieten van de prachtige hotels, de mooie stranden, de heerlijke Havana Club Rum allemaal neergepoot door de "proletarische "KP-maffia maar eens buiten de toeristencentra ziet men de armoede , de afgekalfaterde huizen, de roestige oude VS-wagens , de gammele bootjes en dan ziet men het ware gezicht van het prachtige "arbeidersparadijs Cuba".

Dus er is al decenia een embargo. Weet je wat dat betekend?

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

Inderdaad. Na twee jaar harde aanpak zijn de terroristische aanvallen gedaald van een per dag tot een per twee maanden.

Nee na 60 jaar van harde aanpak zijn ze gestegen van 0 tot 2 per maand.

En ondertussen zijn ze ook nog eventjes de economie van israel kapot aan het maken.

Als Israel ze nog eens tien jaar bij de keel houdt, maar deze keer zonder verzwakkende verdragen en terugtrekkingen, dan gaan die moordenaarsbendes op termijn dezelfde weg op als de IRA.

Nope na 10 jaar zal israel gewoon failliet zijn en gaan er nog meer terroristen klaarstaan . Nogmaals wanneer denk je dat de eerste aanslag was? 2001?

Het is daar ook niet op twee jaar gelukt, hé?

Het is daar nooit gelukt met een harde aanpak.

[filosoof]

500.000 kinderen tijdens de blokkade en méér dan 10.000 doden in de oorlog


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

IRAQ BODY COUNT Press Releases
PR6 - Sunday February 8th 2004 - 9.00 a.m.
As many as 10,000 civilians were killed in Iraq during 2003.
Forget Hutton and other sideshows: this is the central issue demanding an official inquiry.
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, according to Iraq Body Count (IBC), an independent group of US and UK researchers. These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004. IBC's experience of data-gathering throughout the preceding year shows that reports of additional deaths often continue to emerge many months after the event. Many civilian deaths are almost certainly, as yet, unreported, and even the current IBC maximum cannot be considered to approach a complete and final toll of innocent deaths.
Calls for an official reckoning are mounting. In today's "Independent on Sunday" Labour MP Bob Marshall Andrews added his support to IBC's call for an official inquiry into the human costs of the Iraq War.
Based on corroborated media reports, IBC has compiled a data-base of some 300 separate records of civilian deaths. The latest entry (x298) focuses on the hundreds of Iraqi policemen murdered in violent attacks since April 2003. Seen by the occupying authorities and anti-occupation paramilitaries alike as the occupation's front-line defence, Iraqi police have become easy targets compared to heavily-protected US officials and soldiers, and their deaths are just the latest example of how it is the Iraqi people who are paying the heaviest price for the the occupation, just as they paid the major human cost of the war.
In an extensive editorial, the co-founders of IBC show how the official response on both sides of the Atlantic has been characterised by evasive tactics such as:
• repeated professions of ignorance and a denial of any possibility of gaining useful knowledge;
• denial of responsibility, placing this instead on convenient "others" at various points in time – e.g. Saddam during the war, Al Qaida for recent bombings;
• the establishment of narrowly-limited military "self-investigations," the majority of which are never completed or publicly reported;
• official focus limited to US and UK military deaths with wilful ignorance of the price paid by Iraqis;
• deliberate obstruction of Iraqis' own efforts to count their war dead;
• insultingly low token "compensation" payments to a small and arbitrarily-limited number of Iraqi claimants.
At the heart of all these tactics is an implicit double standard, a standard which values the life of a Westerner far above the life of an Arab or an Asian, and which considers lives devastated by our own actions to be unworthy of serious interest and investigation, let alone genuine concern.
Iraq Body Count spokesperson John Sloboda said: "This official disinterest must end. We are now calling for an independent international tribunal to be set up to establish the numbers of dead, the circumstances in which they were killed and an appropriate and just level of compensation for the victims' families."
For further information contact:
John Sloboda ([email protected])
Hamit Dardagan ([email protected])
PR5 - September 23rd 2003

Over 1,500 violent civilian deaths in occupied Baghdad


The first definitive total of violent civilian deaths in Baghdad since mid April has been published by Iraq Body Count (IBC), an Anglo-American research group tracking media-reported civilian deaths occuring as a consequence of the US/UK military intervention in Iraq.

From April 14th to 31st August, 2,846 violent deaths were recorded by the Baghdad city morgue. When corrected for pre-war death rates in the city a total of at least 1,519 excess violent deaths in Baghdad emerges from reports based on the morgue's records.

IBC's latest study is the first comprehensive count to adjust for the comparable "background level" of deaths in Baghdad in recent pre-war times. It is therefore an estimate of additional deaths in the city directly attributable to the breakdown of law and order following the US takeover and occupation of Baghdad.

The study confirms the widespread anecdotal evidence that violence on the streets of Baghdad has skyrocketed, with the average daily death rate almost tripling since mid April from around 10 per day to over 28 per day during August.

Another worrying development is that during the pre-war period deaths from gunshot wounds accounted for approximately 10% of bodies brought to the morgue, but now account for over 60% of those killed. The small number of reports available for other cities indicate that these trends are being mirrored elsewhere in the country.

Although the majority of deaths are the result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence, some were directly caused by US military fire. There is evidence that these deaths, often from indiscriminate use of firepower, increasingly fail to be reported or remain unacknowledged by occupation forces.
But responsibility for the current mayhem in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq is not diffused at the bottom - at the level of ordinary soldiers ill-suited for police-work in a hostile environment - but is concentrated at the top, in the air-conditioned corridors of power in Washington and London.

The Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, to which the US and UK are signatories, place the responsibility for ensuring public order and protecting the civilian population from violence on the occupying powers. UN Resolution 1483, which recognized the US/UK as the de facto occupying authority in Iraq, clearly bound them to these duties. But the US/UK are manifestly failing to fulfil them, compounding the death and destruction already unleashed by their invasion of Iraq. At the same time the US, in particular, resists any multilateral initiatives which would lead to an early end to its dominance over the country.

Meanwhile the latest reports from the nation's capital show that, as throughout the summer, the city's daily death toll continues to rise.

IBC researcher Hamit Dardagan said "The US may be effective at waging war but the descent of Iraq's capital city into lawlessness under US occupation shows that it is incompetent at maintaining public order and providing security for the civilian population. The US has toppled Saddam and discovered that it won't be discovering any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So why is it still there? And if the US military can't ensure the safety of Iraqi civilians and itself poses a danger to them, what is its role in that country?

"It is high time for the occupying authority to take serious steps towards an orderly hand-over of power and jurisdiction to Iraqis instead of making them junior partners in running their own country, and for the US/UK to stop requiring the international community to act as nothing more than a fig-leaf for US control of Iraq.

"Until they do, ordinary Iraqis may justifiably feel ungrateful for a 'liberation' that has removed the fear of Saddam but left them under military occupation and living in terror of their own streets."
[The numbers entered in the IBC Database for x132 are lower than the total of 1,519, but this is because some of the deaths included in this total were already published in the database. For more details see the accompanying Note for x132.]

PR4 - May 6th 2003
HOW MANY CIVILIANS WERE KILLED BY CLUSTER BOMBS?
The Pentagon says 1: Iraq Body Count says at least 200.
An independent research organisation has published detailed evidence of at least 200 civilians killed by coalition cluster bombs since the start of the Iraq War (full details at www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial.htm).
The Pentagon has admitted only one recorded case of a civilian death from cluster munitions in Iraq this year. This extraordinarily low number has been greeted with widespread incredulity. Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth has condemned it as a "whitewash". Amnesty International has called for an independent investigation to be held into coalition use of cluster munitions. So far, however, such critics have not been able to draw on a firm counter-estimate of the numbers so far recorded killed.
To begin to fill this informational vacuum an international research team yesterday published the world's first comprehensive numerical analysis of cluster-related deaths.
Since the start of hostilities Iraq Body Count has been building up a meticulous and exhaustive compilation of every reported civilian death in Iraq caused by coalition military action. It has based its work on corroborated reports in key media sources published worldwide. The research team has updated its estimates on a daily basis by adding to a constantly growing on-line data-base (www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) which now reports over 100 separate incidents involving up to 2700 civilian deaths in total.
Among these incidents are included reliable reports of at least 200 civilian deaths due to cluster bombs, with up to a further 172 deaths which were probably caused by cluster bombs. Of these 372 deaths, 147 have been caused by detonation of unexploded or "dud" munitions, with around half this number being children.
Many of the press reports from which the data have been extracted contain graphic eyewitness details of injuries and mutilations confirmed by doctors as being typical of cluster bombs, including dismemberment and decapitation, and the riddling of the body with deep shrapnel wounds.
Authors John Sloboda and Hamit Dardagan said "Public concern about the possible misuse of these savagely indiscriminate weapons is rapidly mounting. Our research reveals the shocking disparity between what the world's press has already reported and what the Pentagon is prepared to admit. Those who are genuinely concerned about civilian casualties, and interested in minimising them, can no longer plead ignorance.

"I THINK THIS IS A VERY HARD CHOICE, BUT THE PRICE - WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT."
http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):
CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.




http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm


u n c o v e r I r a q . c o m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a l b r i g h t: " w o r t h i t "

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):


CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.


Yes, she said it. The Albright interview clips
Seeing is believing. This exchange is made available under the terms below in standard Internet multimedia formats. The clips are unedited, save for the addition of titling. Each clip is roughly 20-seconds long, and has been tested on IE4/IE5 and Netscape 4.5 (Windows 95/98/NT/2K, only). You can play these files directly by clicking on the links. To download a copy to your local system, right-click the link and choose "Save target as ..." (IE) or "Save link as ..." (Netscape).
>> Albright.avi: Color video and sound. 1.2MB
>> WorthIt.wav: Audio only. 195KB


Videotapes of the entire segment can be purchased from CBS News (which retains the copyright) at 1-800-848-3256. The report is not for the faint of heart; the child above died minutes after he was filmed.


The interview continues
It's important to note this wasn't an ambush interview. Albright came well-prepared, even showing visual aids at one point. As you'll hear on the recording, Albright utters "... worth it" with a rising inflection. She continues speaking, her voice obscured by Stahl's voiceover. Albright - probably realizing her statement was impolitic - adds the following justification.

Albright attempts to justify her commentOn tape, Albright's rationale was edited to follow the statement of a lawyer specializing in human rights. The lawyer stated that sanctioning Iraq's civilian population to change its leadership was not moral, to which Albright responded:

ALBRIGHT: It is a moral question, but the moral question is even a larger one. Don't we owe to the American people and to the American military and to the other countries in the region that this man (Saddam Hussein) not be a threat?

STAHL: Even with the starvation?

ALBRIGHT: I think, Leslie … it is hard for me to say this because I am a humane person, but my first responsibility is making sure that United States forces do not have to go and re-fight the Gulf War.

The second Stahl/Albright exchange has now been converted to AVI format.

>> Albright2.avi: Color video and sound. 1.8MB
How is war to be fought?
The morality of war concerns not just when to fight, but how. The protection of non-combatants during hostilities has been recognized for over a millenium, since the Council of Le Puy in 975. It is the core of all convention and law governing behavior during war.

Albright turns this on its head. She justifies civilian starvation because it may reduce the risk of military casualties.

Dr. Albright's conversational tone here is striking, verging on a plea for understanding from Leslie Stahl. 'This is not an easy job', she seems to say, 'and I'm not faced with morally unambiguous or easy choices.' This is true, of course. The decision to commit troops to combat is grevious, both morally and (here's the rub) politically.

Albright acknowledges that committing troops to battle presents a moral danger, as does endangering Iraq's civilian population by embargo. What goes unsaid is that the domestic political cost to win support for military action would have been enormous. Not so for the embargo -- especially if the results weren't reported.

To engage Iraq militarily would have been difficult, politically and morally. To contain Iraq by embargo was far, far, far less difficult politically, but morally untenable. Here the course is set: expedience trumps morality; real politik bests military and national honor.

Consider American reaction if Albright's statements had been uttered by, say, Slobodan Milosevic ("Please understand, I had to besiege the Kosovar Albanians to avoid risking our Serbian troops. The 500,000 infant deaths are tragic, but my duty was clear."). One imagines the uproar echoing to The Hague.


An instinctive disavowal
In May 1998, Albright made the following comments before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Note Albright's immediate, instinctive disavowal of her earlier remark:

Q: One very brief question on a related thing in the region. Two years ago, on "60 Minutes," you said that the price of half a million Iraqi children dying as a result of the sanctions, largely, was, quote, "worth it." Do you regret making that statement, which got substantial play in the Arab world, though not much here?
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Let me just say this; I have said -- I do not actually remember saying that specifically --
Q: I've seen it.
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Well then, I guess I said it. Let me just say this: I believe that the fact that Iraqi children are dying is not the fault of the United States, but of Saddam Hussein. And I think it is ridiculous for the United States to be blamed for the dictatorial and cruel, barbaric ways that Saddam Hussein treats his people ... So you can't lay that guilt trip on me. I mean I think it is Saddam --
Q: You don't think the U.S. has any culpability --
Moderator: I think she's addressed that.
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Yeah.


A more recent follow-up was reported by journalist John Pilger in The Guardian (UK), April 3, 2000.

In Washington, I interviewed James Rubin, an under secretary of state who speaks for Madeleine Albright. ... When I questioned Rubin about (Albright's "worth it" comment), he claimed Albright's words were taken out of context. He then questioned the "methodology" of a report by the UN's World Health Organisation (sic), which had estimated half a million deaths. Advising me against being "too idealistic", he said: "In making policy, one has to choose between two bad choices . . . and unfortunately the effect of sanctions has been more than we would have hoped." He referred me to the "real world" where "real choices have to be made". In mitigation, he said, "Our sense is that prior to sanctions, there was serious poverty and health problems in Iraq." The opposite was true, as Unicef's data on Iraq before 1990, makes clear.


Out of context?
If by "out of context" Rubin means there's a deeper background that would add complexity to Albright's comment, then he's right ... but only in the humdrum sense in which this is always true of interviews.
But if Rubin is questioning the report's accuracy, he is utterly disingenuous: the report was not questioned at the time it aired, nor later when it won an Emmy and duPont award. Further, the State Department has always been fully aware of sanctions' civilian impact, as current attempts to re-target sanctions confirm.

Even when talking with Pilger, Rubin didn't press the issue, instead offering "out of context" as the most casual of slurs before veering onto the next defense. Rubin undercuts, rather than challenges; concealment remains the desired outcome.


Blowback
As this is being written, lawyers for a defendent in the embassy bombing trial (Mohamed al-'Owhali) have played Albright's interview in court, seeking to explain their client's motivation (the tragic fulfillment of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback).

Scores of State Department employees were killed and horribly injured by the bombings, and in view of this fact then surely -- if Albright's statement was taken out of context -- surely the State Department would raise an objection here?

But of course, they don't. As the NY Times reported (June 5, 2001):

The ("60 Minutes") program also includes an interview with Secretary of State (sic) Madeleine K. Albright, who is confronted with the estimate that 500,000 children had died since the imposition of sanctions in Iraq, and is asked whether the price was worth it. "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it," she replied. A spokeswoman for the former secretary of state said that "it would be inappropriate for Secretary Albright to comment on this while the trial is still going on."
[Update: The "Blowback" defense carried the day, and the death penalty was not applied. A transcript of the closing argument is available on this site.]


Defamation and sound-bite journalism
At the time she spoke, Albright was not a policy-maker. She was loyally, if ineptly, defending policies made by her superiors, policies which pre-dated the administration in which she served. Would it have been personally unfair to Albright to further publicize these remarks?

The answer, of course, is "no". To even raise this question is to confuse protecting a bureaucrat's career with the security and reputation of the country they serve, while ignoring millions affected by the policies. Hints of this confusion -- conflating private political ambitions with national interests -- swirl frequently through America's Iraq policies and media coverage.

In her "60 Minutes" interview, Albright not only defended the civilian cost of the embargo, but justified this course because it lessened the risk of military involvement (and by extension, lessened the political cost to her administration). Albright made these comments in an interview for which she prepared, at a time when she was mere months from becoming chief foreign policy officer for the most powerful country on earth.

Publicizing these comments and the discussion thereby provoked would have been in the noblest traditions of American journalism.

This is being written five years after Albright's interview. The policies Albright defended are now discredited, and understanding is growing of America's role in hundreds of thousands of senseless deaths. It's a tragedy Albright's remark wasn't reported in 1996, and this story pursued.

- Commentary by Drew Hamre
June, 2001

Photos and multimedia material on this page Copyright CBS News, 1996.
The Pilger material is Copyright by The Guardian, 2000
The bombing trial report is Copyright The New York Times, 2001



http://www.irvinereview.org/guest1.htm

Irvine Review
The voice of reason at UC Irvine

Return to Irvinereview.org Homepage.

ALBRIGHT'S BLUNDER
By Douglas E. Hill

Critics of UN sanctions against Iraq often claim that the sanctions have killed half a million Iraqi children, and offer as evidence Madeleine Albright's admission of this on “60 Minutes.” Yet Albright’s response proved nothing other than her incompetence as a diplomat by answering, rather than challenging, a loaded question. Diverse speakers and writers at UCI, including Najeeb Kahn in the New University (1999), Dr. Mark LeVine (Cross Cultural Center, October 24, 2002), and a speaker introducing a video on Iraq sanctions (in the Crystal Cove auditorium) have all cited her remarks. Given the frequency that opponents of sanctions cite her remarks, she has gotten surprisingly little criticism from sanctions supporters and others who suspect that Iraqi government policies have something to do with child mortality there. Here's the quote, from when Leslie Stahl interviewed then US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" on 12 May 1996:

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"



Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Stahl said, "we have heard." She did not say, "we have data," or even better, offer an outline of the data that allegedly shows this. It should not be surprising that in a totalitarian society like Iraq, learning the rate of mortality of its children, and the causes of that rate, is quite difficult. (Determining such causes is a difficult job for epidemiologists even in a free society.) In fact, this is a topic of no small controversy. David Cortright wrote in The Nation last year:

... [T]he 1999 report "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children," by Columbia University's Richard Garfield, ... estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000. Garfield's analysis showed child mortality rates double those of the previous decade.

(These numbers indicate a longer period with less than half of the numbers that Stahl cited.) Thus no one argues that there is problem of excess child mortality in Iraq, but the numbers and cause are a matter of controversy. But note what Stahl did: she did not ask Albright how many children had died, or what the cause was. She used an old interrogation trick: she asked a loaded question. This is a question, which like “do you use a club when you beat your wife?” incriminates you whether you answer yes or no. She asked if the price was worth it.

And Albright walked right into this trap. She did not dispute the numbers, or the cause. She just said, essentially, "yes" to a loaded question. If a lawyer is representing you, he had better not answer a loaded question in such an incriminating matter (and he had better not let you answer one either). But as an Ambassador, Albright was representing all Americans. A diplomat worth her salt would have known this. But apparently Albright did not.

It is a scandal that her response did not prevent Albright from becoming Secretary of State, and thus in charge of American diplomacy. It showed incompetent diplomacy for her to answer in the manner she did, even if the numbers and cause implied by the data in the loaded question were true. But while the numbers are in question, the facts do not support the sanctions as a primary cause. When Albright was Secretary, her own State Department refuted that UN imposed sanctions could be a cause of these casualties, when it wrote in a document released 13 September 1999 (and updated 24 March 2000):

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

Thus a stupid reply from Albright cannot be used to claim that the sanctions are the cause when a careful study from her department disputes this. A later report from the State department, of 26 January 2001, also supports the claim that it is Iraqi government behavior that is so hurting its citizens:

During this period [June to December, 2000], US$7.8 billion were available to Iraq for purchases during this period, yet Iraq submitted purchase applications worth only US$4.26 billion - barely 54 percent of the amount available for purchases to help the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. In key sectors of the Iraqi economy, Saddam's regime's disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people is made plain.

As to what could be causing the increase in mortality, Cortright in The Nation cites a UNICEF study by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah that seem to show that it is not in fact the sanctions that are primarily responsible for the increase in child mortality:

In south-central Iraq [under Iraqi government control], child mortality rates rose from 56 per 1,000 births for the period 1984-89 to 131 per 1,000 for the period 1994-99. In the autonomous Kurdish region in the north [subject to the same sanctions] … child mortality rates actually fell during the same period, from 80 per 1,000 births to 72 per 1,000.

Thus despite the sanctions, the mortality rate is higher only in the areas under Iraqi government control, suggesting that it is that government, rather than the sanctions, which bears primary responsibility. If the numbers are as grave has a quarter- to a half-a-million dead children, then there is a strong humanitarian argument to liberate Iraq from the tyranny holding Iraqi children hostage like this. And it is unfortunate that an American diplomat who was to become U.S. Secretary of State would aid those who wish to blame the U.S. by conceding that UN sanctions are responsible when the evidence does not support this.

Douglas E. Hill is a graduate student at UCI in Logic & Philosophy of Science, is vice-president of Students for Science & Skepticism, and hosts "Campus Talk UCI" Mondays 4-5 pm on KUCI 88.9 fm. This article is copyright © 2002 by Douglas E. Hill.

Return to Irvinereview.org.
Copyright © 2002 The Irvine Review Foundation

http://flag.blackened.net/pipermail/...er/000346.htmlhttp://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671005.phphttp://www.rationalenquirer.org/comm...es/000017.html

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Lees jij ooit wat je schrijft? Ken je wel iets van de geschiedenis buiten die van de VS?

IRA was sterk tot de britten (na bloody sunday remember?) besloten dat de harde aanpak (complete bezetting) niet opbracht . Ze gingen dan werken met de noord ieren zelf en met geheime missies . Pas dan is het IRA beginnen verliezen omdat de gemiddelde ier zag dat de repressie grotendeels verdwenen was.

Israel probeert al 60 jaar de problemen met de harde hand op te lossen en al 60 jaar lang sterven er israelies en arabieren. Ach ja wat een oplossing.

De vergelijking Irak/Israel is er een die jij maakt. De situaties zijn compleet verschillend. Me dunkt dat de repressie in Irak veel minder is als onder Saddam.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

De vergelijking Irak/Israel is er een die jij maakt. De situaties zijn compleet verschillend. Me dunkt dat de repressie in Irak veel minder is als onder Saddam.

Het bewijst gewoon 2 maal dat de harde aanpak niet helpt. De repressie is minder ? Of het nu meer of minder is dat maakt weinig uit. Wat telt is wat de mensen horen als ze constant de verhalen horen van de VS die voor doden zorgt in iraq (of het nu waar is of niet) dan zien ze de repressie als hard.

Wat waren ze aan het roepen na de vorige bomaanslag? VS buiten . Nirmand van die enkele honderden die de schuld op saddam stak.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

500.000 kinderen tijdens de blokkade en méér dan 10.000 doden in de oorlog

Ja maar gulle ze plezanterikken. De anti's en de non-willing hebben als enige alternatief voor een oorlog om zware gevallen alla Irak-van-Saddam op te lossen.....jawel..... sancties en embargo's.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

Ja maar gulle ze plezanterikken. De anti's en de non-willing hebben als enige alternatief voor een oorlog om zware gevallen alla Irak-van-Saddam op te lossen.....jawel..... sancties en embargo's.

Je bent nog een optie vergeten: Saddam vermoorden in commando stijl als alternatief.

Maar als we dat gedaan hadden waren diezelfde mensen nu verontwaardigd over het optreden van de CIA.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Je bent nog een optie vergeten: Saddam vermoorden in commando stijl als alternatief.

Maar als we dat gedaan hadden waren diezelfde mensen nu verontwaardigd over het optreden van de CIA.

TomB,
Alle respect voor jou, maar we zien allemaal toch wel het verschil tussen het fysiek elimineren van 1 dictator en het afzetten van 1 dictator middels het fysiek elimineren van ruw geschat 510.000 van zijn onderdanen/slachtoffers...
filo

[Aangebrande Phönix]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

TomB,
Alle respect voor jou, maar we zien allemaal toch wel het verschil tussen het fysiek elimineren van 1 dictator en het afzetten van 1 dictator middels het fysiek elimineren van ruw geschat 510.000 van zijn onderdanen/slachtoffers...
filo

Voor die prijs stel ik voor dat we hem in de arena werpen.

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

TomB,
Alle respect voor jou, maar we zien allemaal toch wel het verschil tussen het fysiek elimineren van 1 dictator en het afzetten van 1 dictator middels het fysiek elimineren van ruw geschat 510.000 van zijn onderdanen/slachtoffers...
filo

510.000 waarvan 500.000 zijn gevallen vervolgens dezelfde oplossing die werd vooropgesteld door de anti's.

Bovendien is het ook zo dat de anti's in het geval van eliminatie van Saddam ook moord en brand hadden geschreeuwd.

It's a lose lose situation. 't Is nooit goed. Maat een degelijk alternatief? Nooit gehoord of gelezen.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Aangebrande Phönix

Voor die prijs stel ik voor dat we hem in de arena werpen.

Alternatief te laat voorgesteld... die +/- 510.000 zijn al dood

[Aangebrande Phönix]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

Alternatief te laat voorgesteld... die +/- 510.000 zijn al dood :evil:

Wie spreekt over voorstellen? Het is een eis. Lever de dictator uit aan "the Iraqi people".