Talk:Iraq sanctions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

I made a few small but significant changes to this article's handling of Iraqi deaths as a result of the sanctions. Presenting the 500,000 deaths as proven fact, and as facts entirely accepted by the U.N., is wrong. I included a link to the Web page that caused me to question these totals. The U.N. reports on this topic were clear that the sanctions alone were not to blame for the increases in child mortality in Iraq, and also did not support the 500,000 children/1 million dead numbers.

Here is that link again, in case anyone takes issues with its reasoning or my edits. Thanks. (preceding unsigned comment by Marley23 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2005)

This was a good and important improvement. But given that much of the article seems to take for granted both the large number of causalties, with the sanctions as the cause, I believe the NPOV tag is justified for now. There still needs to be more discussion of how controversial that is. DougHill (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those changes seem reasonable looking at the source, but in view of how widespread the 500,000 figure is, some more detail on how this figure came about (maybe in a footnote?) and perhaps another source to back it up would be useful. Rd232 talk 10:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the correct estimate is 1.7 m total deaths. I've provided one link that mentions that, but there are several others as well: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2001/0510ina.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/iraq/ffiraqtime.xml you can search google for "Iraq Sanctions 1.7 million dead" and find plenty of other links


why the hell was this link removed? until someone can provide a reasonable explantion, im putting it back in.

There's two or three links there that discuss these numbers, not 100% sure which one you are attached to. If I changed a link, it was because I thought I found a better. If I read correctly the 1.7 million figure is mistakenly high, even according to the researchers who originally came up with it. So for those who are justly concerned with deaths owing to the sanctions, it doesn't do any good to trumpet overly high numbers because then they lose credibility. The 1.7 million figure was also a number that I really never came across until I read this Wikipedia article. I think the correct way to refer to it is "hundreds of thousand of deaths," because that figure is pretty well accepted, and you don't get bogged down in some diversion over the exact numbers. DanielM 07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody reverted with a comment about "smarkectomy," but it doesn't really help the article. The reference (which is from some Iraqi cultural minister) refers to depleted uranium deaths and bombshell deaths as well as sanctions. Few agree with the 1.7 million figure. I am dismayed by the sanctions deaths as much as anyone but it doesn't help to overstate them, as said previously you lose credibility. If you just want to generate some oohs and ahs why not claim 10 million, you can surely Google up some person who said that number. DanielM 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
One reason the page is so badly written is that too many sentences squirm around the issue whether deaths were actually caused by sanctions "alone" or "at all". I'd be interested in an objective representation of the various studies and the overall excess deaths during the sanctions period, without attributing guilt or credibility levels and without throwing in arbitrary comparisons with whatever figures the author finds acceptable for the US invasion of Iraq.
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be of scholary value, the prime goal should be to find primary sources like UNICEF. The links and references rely too heavily on press coverage. I'd throw out the entire BBC section on infant mortality and either use the Lancet study directly or UNICEF material.
P.S. I've edited the section accordingly, reusing the original wording where appropriate. I also added some missing info on the economic situation inside Iraq during the sanctions, as a complement to the political evaluation done by others. I inserted it above the original content in the section "Effects of the sanctions".
To further increase quality, I would like somebody else to throw out sentences like "However, some alleged that the sanctions caused the death of between...". They are totally vague and uninformative (I doubt many will even take the trouble to scroll down to the footnotes). Just state objectively who says what and let the reader decide. They don't belong into the introduction, either.
I've found an interesting list of casualty clains here: Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century88.217.79.252 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] The reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM.

1) Iraq claimed UNSCOM had been infiltrated by American and British spies, who were more interested in Iraq's legally allowed conventional weapon systems.

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

2) Iraq claimed that the US and UK would veto any attempt to lift or reduce sanctions

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-07.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html

Then of course, there's the problem of proving a negative. How exactly does Iraq prove it does not possess WMDs? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Iraq could no more prove they aren't hiding WMDs than they could prove they aren't hiding aliens or bigfoot. Not finding anything proves nothing. It could mean they don't exist, or they do exist and haven't been found...yet.

There is a lot of BS surrounding this issue. I think its important because the US justified its invasion of Iraq in part by Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspections. Since the invasion, its now fairly certain that Iraq hasn't possessed WMDs since 1994.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm


So why wouldn't Iraq cooperate after everything had been found (1995 onward)??? I can't think of a good reason for Iraq not to cooperate if weapon inspections were fair and impartial. Therefore either the inspections weren't fair and impartial or Iraq had come to percieve the inspections as fair and impartial.

Therefore Iraq came to the conclusion that cooperation was pointless.

Earth as one 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A good reason not to cooperate is that Saddam found the status quo quite useful. The sanctions regime very substantially increased his hold over the Iraqi people (by giving him more control over food coming into the country etc). It was also in his interest strategically to maintain an ambiguity over whether he had WMD, both internally (prestige) and externally (remember the 1980-88 war against Iran) - as long as he didn't think that anybody would invade him in order to disarm him of WMD. I've also seen it suggested that Saddam's own people were lying to him over whether they still had viable WMD. Rd232 talk 14:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your points. That's not the direct subject of this article, but I do think it would be good if you could wrap it up into a tight paragraph with a choice link or two, this could be included and would benefit the article. The lead paragraph "sanctions imposed because of Saddam's failures" or whatever it says also needs improvement. DanielM 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] link???

I was researching the Iraq sanctions, and I wanted more information than was in the article. I looked at one of the links at the bottom, the one titled "John Pilger, Impact of Iraq sanctions", and I was disappointed by the results. Not only is it not objectively written, but it is just as much about the gulf war as it is about the sanctions. If someone could evaluate it to confirm my objection and then remove it, that would be great.TrogdorPolitiks 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lame Revert War

This refers to the evident disagreement over the section "Problems with the Inspection Process." The section was carefully cited and sourced by Earth as One. I don't find it to be POV and I don't think it's been shown that even the section is based around the "writings of ZMag and Pilger in general" much less the entire article, as was claimed by TJive. Also his justifying his reversions as "rv mass reversions" is a little awkward IMO because those mass reversions, if that is the way to describe them, came about because of his own mass deletions, which by the way occurred without discussion. My two cents: the article states up front that the sanctions were on account of Saddam's failures, but I think the causes are more complicated than that. The section currently in question tells more about the story, is not unduly tangential, and I think it should stay. DanielM 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I believe we have encountered each other before. My comment on "mass reversions" is in reference to this user (known to me through another forum) who follows my edits around because he dislikes my views. If I ever mark edits this way in any context, that is what is happening. Another user did so using sockpuppets rather than anons, but he had stopped months ago.
As for a justification, the simplest answer is it is a tangent, and a highly tendentious interpretation of the relevant history, particularly musings on the logical "impossibility" of proving a negative, which is a very absurd, minority viewpoint stated as fact and encyclopedic. --TJive 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put a note on my user page to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. --TJive 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I observe that the section of criticism of the UNSCOM process is continuously being removed and reverted by two users. The section is in its current form not obviously relevant to the sanctions. However, as lifting sanction was made conditional on UNSCOM cooperation, understanding how the process was frustrated becomes relevant information. I will rewrite the section to that end later this week. Jens Nielsen 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the anonymous editor that reverts the text deleted routinely by TJive. I will also revert (and tweak) it because I think it is good and has some relevance. I think others revert it. Editor Earth as One did an okay job on it originally, though his sourcing needed some improvement IMO. DanielM 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Deletions of Critism of Sanctions Section Be Stopped

This is to ask that the deletions of the "criticism of the sanctions" section be stopped. We have at least three editors who find it to be relevant. Earth as One, DanielM, and and Jensbn. Only user TJive has spoken against this text. DanielM 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the section is a good one. TJive is in a minority position. --Ben Houston 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it's so good we need two of them. Good eyes. --TJive 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albright statement

I don't think mentioning that she regretted the statement adds much information. Anyone getting such an amount of bad press as she did from it would of course regret it on those grounds alone. She describes that she thought it 'stupid' to say, which does in no way exclude that she actually meant it. Jens Nielsen 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If she says it was stupid thing to say, I think that means she regrets it and doesn't feel that way. I guess you are suggesting that she is using weasel words, that she really thinks it was worth all those dead people, but she regrets only having admitted it bluntly. But I don't think there's enough evidence to assume that she is being weaselly like that. If I remember correctly they actually pinged her with this question "was it worth it" when she was walking down a hall surrounded by bunches of people, and I think it was an off-the-cuff response. So IMO it is not justified to vilify her on that comment and not provide a little more information. DanielM 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

She said it calmly on 60 Minutes. It wasn't just stupid to say it, is was - mildly put - stupid to deliberately kill several hundred thousand of innocent human beings. // Anom.

I hope her actual quote from her autobiography, that she regrets answering a loaded question, that by answering, does not represent her view and proves nothing, clarifies this. This is more relevant that mere regret over her statement.DougHill (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Banner?

I want to take down the NPOV banner, because nobody seems to be discussing anything and I think banners like that shouldn't just be left up there indefinitely until people get around to discussing it. I'm not saying the page adheres completely to WP:NPOV but those who think the flag ought to be there ought to get around to talking or fixing the problems they see with the article. Any comment? DanielM (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mike Rosen article at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20020315/ai_n9999150 presents an argument that should be considered, and should be available on this page, despite the fact that he begins with an unnecessary ad hominem. (BTW, this article is by Mike Rosen, not Mike Royko who was dead in 2002.) In restoring this, I am taking to heart DanielM's request that we fix problems rather than posting NPOV banners. Also, Cortright also offers some qualifications, so he should be cited with the qualifications. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article from Cortright you added as a reference in addition to Rosen doesn't support what you typed that I can see. Cortright doesn't "question the extent to which this can be blamed on the sanctions." Cortright says that the numbers are less than a million and a half but still "horrifying." Cortright says blame the sanctions on Saddam, he doesn't say don't blame the sanctions. Cortright has written books on stuff like this and looks at first glance like a reasonably reliable source. Rosen is a different case. He is a radio talk-show host with a business degree. His article, which is rather short, basically praises the column of Matt Welch and doesn't seem to much break off into its own territory from Welch's assertions, but with respect to tone he goes quite further, criticizing a "cabal of America-hating lefties" he says are pumping up sanctions deaths. So there are problems with the way you have done this, with WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and text not supported by references. And to reiterate, we shouldn't be caveating a body of scientific research with "but others disagree" text referencing political talk-show hosts and the like, though there may be some other place in the article to put the political back-and-forth. DanielM (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caveating work of study groups, medical journals, international organizations, with political columnists?

I don't think we should add "but others disagree" caveats to text in the article referring to a body of research done by scientists, study groups, medical journals and others, and sourcing it to Matt Welch, who appears to be a political columnist and blogger. If we're going to add that kind of caveat, we should source it to appropriate sources for that kind of research. I'm not opposed to identifying Welch and talking about his column elsewhere in the article, but if we do I'd like to see *him* caveated by any of the many political columnists, bloggers etc. who found the results of the sanctions to be a terrible tragedy. See WP:WEIGHT DanielM (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Welch's work is important since he debunked a lot of the bad arguments, and still concluded that there was a terrible tragedy. DougHill (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intended effects

That tragedy was of course not the intent of the sanctions, so the article should have some discussion of how successful the sanctions actually were in their intended effects. I just quoted from: [1] and [2] which argues that they were. We should also mention that the breakdown of the sanctions was cited by Dick Cheney [3] as part of the justification for the Iraq war. I'll leave it to the other good editors here to figure out if they should fit elsewhere in the article. DougHill (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)