4 ms·

Reliable source for that claim? I'll be very surprised if the sanctions blocked hospitals from purchasing medical supplies. If anything, I'd suspect the proble

Reliable source for that claim? I'll be very surprised if the sanctions blocked hospitals from purchasing medical supplies. If anything, I'd suspect the problem was poverty.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Here’s a few google results, but I haven’t checked them for accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill... https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-r... This one looks promising: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqap.htm#a2 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqa...
- dunpeal 8y ago
  I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie. "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo. > "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business. Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.
        dunpeal 8y ago
        Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war. Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.
  - 1024core 8y ago
    At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.
pasabagi 8y ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02289-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... A study by Lancet - briefly, that hundreds of thousands of 'excess deaths' were caused by sanctions. It's not something our intellectual culture is particularly comfortable with - drawing lines between death, and the policies that cause death, perhaps because we don't take statistics as seriously as we do causal stories.

Reliable source for that claim? I'll be very surprised if the sanctions blocked hospitals from purchasing medical supplies. If anything, I'd suspect the problem was poverty.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

Here’s a few google results, but I haven’t checked them for accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill... https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-r... This one looks promising: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqap.htm#a2 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqa...

dunpeal 8y ago
I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie. "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo. > "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business. Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.
      - dunpeal 8y ago
        Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war. Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.
- 1024core 8y ago
  At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.

pasabagi 8y ago

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02289-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... A study by Lancet - briefly, that hundreds of thousands of 'excess deaths' were caused by sanctions. It's not something our intellectual culture is particularly comfortable with - drawing lines between death, and the policies that cause death, perhaps because we don't take statistics as seriously as we do causal stories.