Arabs/ The Middle East

I'm far from having a solid opinion on these issues, and even if I did, I would refrain from discussing them on this forum. However, I find this discussion both interesting and important. The following link may create further discussion and help in my own interpretation of the issues.

well, madaline albright (sp?) on 60 minutes was quoted as saying that 500,000 dead iraqi children was an acceptable price to pay for stability in the region.


in my opinion this is exactly comparable to saying something like, 'relocation to the east (heh heh heh)' of all jews is an acceptable price to pay for the good of the reich.


brad

brad maybe you should think twice before saying 'exactly comparable'--ust in general, I mean...this example is far from 'exactly comparable' even if you weight the blame for the dead Iraqi children as being 100% the fault of the USA and 0% the fault of Saddam (which of course is a ridiculous weighting).

well, i know what you mean and youre right about that, but my point is not really the actions, but rather the " leaders' " attitude towards such horrible things.


nazi germany: persecution of jews is a good thing.


madaline albright (speaking for administration): death of 500,00 iraqi children is acceptable for stability in the region. (note she is coming right out and saying that stability in the region is 'worth' the lives of 500k children)


its just not right and every decent person knows it.


just to clarify, the parallel is between leaders' who come right out and say, evil is ok, dont worry about it.


brad

Wouldn't 500,000 dead Iraqi children be genocide? Wasn't the "relocation" of the Jews by Hitler genocide?


Maybe "exactly comparable" isn't exactly right, but it seems pretty close to me, especially if you would weight the responsibility as 100% the fault of the USA.


BTW, did she really say this? I'd appreciate if anyone can provide the exact quote and context.

4) Madeline Albright's exchange with Leslie Stahl on '60 Minutes', 12 May

1996, regarding deaths of Iraqi children:


Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half a million children have died [due to

sanctions on Iraq, imposed because of US pressure]. I mean, that's more

children than died when--wh--in--in Hiroshima. And--and, you know, is the

price worth it?


Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we

think the price is worth it.

(60 MINUTES, May 12, 1996) -

I will make simply one post on this, having no desire to get into an "America Sucks" flame-war. That

aside... Exactly how many presidential palaces does Saddam Hussein have? What do you think the cost of those

palaces could purchase in the way of foodstuffs? In addition, Kurdistan is under the exact same economic

sanctions as Iraq, but since Baghdad's control in that part of the country is weak, well, guess what? There's

no starvation in Kurdistan. Finally, yeah, I know the alternative media loves to quote Madeline Albright as

saying "it's worth it" for all those Iraqi children to starve to death. Now, Noam Chomsky and B. Garid

notwithstanding, Albright is not, in fact, a bloodthirsty tyrant who revels in the slaughter of the innocent,

and indeed, if you check out the actual text of the 60 Minutes interview, she very clearly states that Saddam

Hussein is the reason for the starving Iraqi children.


Indeed, I just went to Lexis-Nexis and read the entire interview. Here is what else Albright had to say, *in

context*:


Ambassador MADELEINE ALBRIGHT (US Representative to United Nations): Well, he's not suffering. But let me just

say this: There's no question that there is a human tragedy going on there. The problem is that their

priorities are not exactly what one would think. Also, Lesley, we have found out that he has spent an

incredible amount of money on things that are his priorities. Let me show you, for the first time, what his

priority is. This is the presidential yacht.


(Photo of Hussein's yacht)


STAHL: (Voiceover) And he's bought this since the sanctions went into effect?


Ambassador ALBRIGHT: (Voiceover) He is--has used it. It takes upkeep. Now in addition to this presidential

yacht, he has built 48 new palaces since the war, refurbished others to the tune of $ 1.5 billion.


(Footage of Stahl and Mohammed Saleh)


STAHL: (Voiceover) We put that to Mohammed Saleh, Iraq's minister of trade.


Mr. MOHAMMED SALEH (Iraq Minister of Trade): We are building palaces or bridges or offices in our local

currency.


(Footage of people counting money)


STAHL: (Voiceover) The local currency is dinars, and he reminded us that they are not recognized in

international markets. They have no value outside Iraq.


STAHL: You say you can't use that money...


Mr. SALEH: Well, I can't use it...


STAHL: ...internationally to buy anything?


Mr. SALEH: Yes, this is the problem. If I can use it to buy food and medicine, then the problem is solved,

but...


(Footage of documents; Albright)


STAHL: (Voiceover) Saleh showed us documents with lists of items Iraq wanted to import that the sanctions

committee at the UN turned down, like batteries and agricultural pumps, anything that would allow them to

build their country. Also, tires for fire engines and spare parts for air conditioners and ambulances. But

Madeleine Albright says...


Ambassador ALBRIGHT: He tries to import Italian marble, videos, perfume, leather jackets. When they ask for

equipment--you were talking about sewage systems?


STAHL: Yes.


Ambassador ALBRIGHT: When they ask for equipment for water pumps, etc., do you know where they end up? In

man-made lakes with huge fountains that they have built out in the desert and they have built on the gardens

of Babylon. They say something that's agricultural parts, it turns out to be parts for military equipment. We

work very hard in the sanctions committee to make sure that the right things get in.


STAHL: Why are you not letting them have parts for ambulances? They can't have cotton?


Ambassador ALBRIGHT: I think the issue is to make sure when certain purchases are made, that they go to the

appropriate people; that he just does not direct them to his little coterie, that they go to the people who

are suffering. His priorities are wrong, not ours, Lesley. His priorities are wrong.


(Footage of Hussein)


STAHL: (Voiceover) She says the US is trying to prevent Saddam Hussein from making and dropping a nuclear bomb

or chemical weapons on other countries. And, she says, he's still lying about his weapons programs.


The United States government does say that all Saddam Hussein has to do is comply with what he's already

ag--agreed to do at the end of the war and there'd be no sanctions.


Mr. NORMAND: That may be the case, but the question that I have is: Is it fair to hold an entire nation of 21

million people hostage to the whims of a person, who has been described by the same US government as a

dictator, as unpredictable, as, you

know, all of the various things that have--that--that he has been called? It basically--you're saying that

until this person behaves, children will have to keep dying.


(Footage of sick children in hospital)


STAHL: (Voiceover) And the Iraqis we met blame the deaths of those children not on Saddam Hussein, but on the

Americans.


Dr. JUMA: The sanction is--is mostly--is applied by America, by United States. I want them to...


STAHL: Do you blame them?


Dr. JUMA: I--I want them to say--to say something to their politicians.


STAHL: You want us to tell our politicians...


Dr. JUMA: Yes.


STAHL: ...but I'm asking if you tell your politicians and you say no.


Dr. JUMA: No, they have nothing to do with the sanctions. We have...


STAHL: That's not the way the American people see it.


Dr. JUMA: The American people?


STAHL: Yes, they think that your politicians don't comply with their agreements.


Dr. JUMA: So they don't--don't get the picture. I don't think they get the right picture. Well, it is about

six years since sanctions. We had employed all the UN wanted from us.


(Footage of Iraqi people; food market; flea market; sick child with the mother)


STAHL: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they're afraid to say so. And there

is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now

people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which

has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets

have sprung up on the streets, where families sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few

extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering.


We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died

when--wh--in--in Hiroshima. And--and, you know, is the price worth it?


Ambassador ALBRIGHT: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.


*******End Relevant Quotation of Transcript*************


And there, ladies and gentleman is the famous Albright quote. In other words, Saddam Hussein could be feeding

his people, but chooses instead to live in luxury. I have even quoted the exceedingly lame response by Iraq

and the manner in which Stahl tried to take Hussein's side. But the point is, the fault of the starving

children is Hussein's.

It is an interesting piece. It also displays what I consider a common and partially erroneous view regarding US policy, which is that it is US policy which is to blame for Islamic rage. Of course US policy is somewhat self-centered, as are the policies of all countries. While some responsibility probably does lie within the US for allowing its foreign policies to be perhaps too self-serving at times, I believe that in all affairs of humans, some responsibilty for rage also lies within the party who becomes enraged.


Islam is a very rigid religion and combined with a very rigid culture, no democracy, and very limited freedoms, this tends to foster a very rigid mindset. Therefore the ideological conflicts between Islam and the West will tend to be exacerbated, and of course political and material differences will fuel the flame when added to the mix. There are also some inherent philosophical differences between Islam and the non-Muslim world which cannot be ever be truly resolved in a philosophical sense. Of course, telling Muslims that their religion contains one-dimensional or fallacious thinking might get you killed in some countries--at the very least you would be considered quite an infidel (by the way, a recent news article in a major newspaper ran a story about a man who was arrested in Iran for suggesting publicly that people ought not to blindly follow the clergy. The point of the story was not just this, but the more amazing aspect that it was not only the hard-line ayatollahs who felt that he should be arrested, it was all of the reformers--the most liberal amongst the clergy--who felt this way as well).


So where does this leave us? With major problems. By the way, in my posts below regarding doing business with Arabs in the US, I'm not saying that I believe all Americans should necessarily follow suit. Doubtless many would feel that showing especially kind consideration to Muslims in our country might be a way of indirectly defusing tensions in a kind of grapevine effect. While this point has merit too, I was just saying what I personally intended to do for a while--of course I will treat them with respect as I try to treat everyone with whom I come into face-to-face contact.

well thanks brad for now confirming what I said months ago in that debate that we had (when I said it wasn't the sanctions that killed those children, it was Saddam and his priorities. By the way, besides his palaces, how about those statues of him at intersections all over the place)

you may be (have been) right, i dont know.


also the original google posters opinion was in there too.


it comes down to whether you believe government info is beyond question or not.


if you think government officials are all honorable then you would easily believe them, while others such as myself would consider a lot of information coming from them as propaganda.


perhaps the main point is that HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED.


its horrible, and personally i think anyone (like madaline albright) who says its a good thing or a good trade, or a good value, or whatever, is just evil.


brad

OK it's evil. I guess that makes Saddam more of a monster than many previously thought, if he is indeed responsible. I don't think it necessarily makes Albright evil for saying it was an acceptable trade-off if it was not foreseeable at the time it was instituted. Besides, without sanctions, Saddam might well have found a way to build twice as many palaces and statues as he actually managed to do, and the children would still have died. They just weren't anywhere near the top of his list of priorities, except as expendable pawns in the international public opinion wars.

well, regardless of what really happened or who is responsible, you can see how this would inspire anti-US sentiment in arab/muslim/3rd world countries.


brad

yes I can see that, but it's too damn bad it didn't instead inspire anti-Hussein sentiment amongst other Muslims (as was probably warranted).


Is this just another example of how Muslim rage is often misdirected or irrational? Not that they're totally at fault since their news media are far more biased and controlled than are ours.


In a larger sense, an unyielding belief system based upon faith (Islam) instead of upon reason is doomed to conflict (and ultimate defeat) with the modern world, taking with it countless lives and tragedies along the way.


It's a bit like trying to be a heroic gambler by virtue of carrying your grandfather's lucky rabbit's foot rather than knowledge of probability theory.

The people that hate America in those countries don't need much of a reason. Anyone that would dance in the streets and yell like banshees upon learning of the tragedies of September 11th are ignorant beyond comprehension.


Madeline Albright may have mispoken, and I am not conceding this point. But she is a brilliant woman and an amazing statesman.


As far as the suffering of Iraqi children and people, blame Hussein. He is the one subjecting his people, (and I use the term "his people" because he treats them as property instead of human beings) to the only logical response to his oppressive and dicatatorial grip on that country. There is a maniac in charge of Iraq and we are right to try and strangle him out of power. If the Iraqi people are so fed up with justified response to this idiot, i.e. sanctions, let them act responsibly and get him out of office. Vote him out..shoot him out..just do it!

you'll never get our guns!

It would be nice if the people of Iraq could do just that, but they can't, for a number of reasons. First, he's got all his extended family in all of the highest positions of power. Second, his personal hero is Josef Stalin and he emulates his methods brilliantly. Any political opponents, or people he perceives to be potential threats, are simply murdered, along with their entire extended families. (this is from Time or Newsweek magazine a few months ago--I forget which)

You're absolutely correct. He is a man of absolutely no morality, integrity or mercy.


I distinctly recall an incident where his two son-in-laws, married to his two daughters, were abroad and critical of him and his regime in the press. He made a huge theatrical display welcoming them to come back to Iraq, that everything was forgiven. They no sooned stepped off the plane before they were ferried off and executed, supposedly by Hussein himself.