Westerners and moral judgements

Tiassa made the following observation here http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993568&postcount=20

that:

"Maybe you're sick and tired of being reminded that Westerners have pissed away their right to make moral judgments."

Does anyone apart from Tiassa agree with this sort of logic?

Not in the least!!! Tiassa is one warped-minded individual in my opinion. Of course my opinion counts for very little to nothing but there seems to be plenty of others here who feel that way also.
 
Not Westerners as such but definitely the American government who undermined their 'moral high-ground' with the current administration and its hypocrisy. Never has the world looked so ill on the US. The term 'Westerner' is too broad, includes Canada, East and West Europe, Aussie and Kiwi land, none of which should suffer for American stupidity. I think maybe Tiassa is referring to national policy and not people as such.
 
I think that happened back when they killed 500,000 children in Iraq. Which appears to be the only thing the UN is good for.
 
What 500,000 children? Post link please. Anyway its not just deaths of iraqi's its Guatanamo, troop misbehaviour, patriot act, Condeleeza's blatant hypocrisy, Cheyne's haliburton, oh yea and Rumsfeld's lies.

...What 500,000 children?
 
Come on Sam. You can't accuse the States of killing 500,000 children without backing it up with evidence and then run off. Back it up with facts for christs sake. comment about the UN was incoherent, didn't make sense
 
Last edited:
Come on Sam. You can't accuse the States of killing 500,000 children without backing it up with evidence and then run off. Back it up with facts for christs sake

I think she may have been referring to the sanctions against Iraq, which led to a substantial increase in infant mortality and malnutrition amongst the children of Iraq.

The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."
(Source)

According to Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month - that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years. If this statistic is difficult to grasp, consider, on the day you read this, up to 200 Iraqi children may die needlessly. "Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors," says Unicef, "the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
(Source)

There is a debate over how many children actually died as a result of those sanctions. Later research states it could be down to around 350,000 children, and that the sanctions, coupled with the bombings caused severe health and malnutrition issues for the Iraqi population.

Garfield has recently recalculated his numbers, based on the additional findings of the Ali and Shah study, to arrive at an estimate of approximately 350,000 through 2000. Most of these deaths are associated with sanctions, according to Garfield, but some are also attributable to destruction caused by the Gulf War air campaign, which dropped 90,000 tons of bombs in forty-three days, a far more intensive attack than the current strikes against Afghanistan. The bombing devastated Iraq's civilian infrastructure, destroying eighteen of twenty electricity-generating plants and disabling vital water-pumping and sanitation systems. Untreated sewage flowed into rivers used for drinking water, resulting in a rapid spread of infectious disease. Comprehensive trade sanctions compounded the effects of the war, making it difficult to rebuild, and adding new horrors of hunger and malnutrition.
(Source)

Some more reading:

Survey information by the World Food Programme/Food and Agriculture Organisa-tion in 2000 indicated 800,000 Iraqi children �chronically malnourished.� (116) The UNICEF 1999 study, also based on extensive field surveys, had shown 21% of children under five underweight, 20% stunted (chronic malnutrition) and 9% wasted (acute malnutrition). Several recent reports have noted that the UN has created initiatives to help the most vulnerable in the Center and South through targeted nutrition programs. These have had some positive results, but it is clear that the government of Iraq has not adequately implemented them.

The FAO 2000 report pointed out that at 2,000 kilocalories, the universal ration provided under the UN program was insufficient in total yield, absent substantial local food additions. The same report insisted also that the composition of the food basket remained nutritionally inadequate: Of great concern is the lack of a number of important vitamins and minerals such as vitamin A, C, riboflavin, folate and iron in the diet. Although the planned ration is reasonably adequate in energy and total protein, it is lacking in vegetables, fruit, and animal products and is therefore deficient in micronutrients." (117) Despite the Oil-for-Food program and the $11 billion worth of food that has entered the country, infant mortality remains very high. Today, most child deaths are not directly due to malnutrition, though. Rather, they are water-related, from such conditions as diarrhoea. Poor water quality and lack of sanitation, combined with existing malnourishment, have taken over from poor nutrition as the prime killer of children in Iraq. UNICEF reported in July 2001 that �Diarrhoea leading to death from dehydration and acute respiratory infections (ARI), together account for 70 per cent of child deaths.� (118)

Deliberate bombing of water treatment facilities during the Gulf War originally degraded the water quality. Since that time, sanctions-based �holds� have blocked the rebuilding of much of Iraq�s water treatment infrastructure. Additionally, sanctions have blocked the rebuilding of the electricity sector which powers pumps and other vital water treatment equipment.

Health problems in Iraq arise from multiple factors, many of which can be attributed to the sanctions. Electricity shortages, in addition to shutting down water-treatment, seriously disrupt hospital care and disrupt the storage of certain types of medicines. Sanctions also result in shortages of medical equipment and spare parts, blockages of certain important medicines, shortage of skilled medical staff, and more.

There can be no doubt, based on health and mortality surveys, that Iraqis are suffering from a major public health crisis. The sanctions both deepen that crisis as a cause and also block measures that could mitigate it through public health measures and curative medical procedures. The health status of the Iraqi people has been a key indicator of the humanitarian consequences of the Iraq sanctions regime.

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

UNICEF, in a widely-publicised study carried out jointly with the Iraq Ministry of Health, determined that 500,000 children under five years old had died in �excess� numbers in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, though UNICEF insisted that this number could not all be ascribed directly to sanctions. (119) UNICEF used surveys of its own as part of the basic research and involved respected outside experts in designing the study and evaluating the data. UNICEF remains confident in the accuracy of its numbers and points out that they have never been subject to a scientific challenge.

Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. (120) He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (121)

There are no reliable estimates of the total number of excess deaths in Iraq beyond the under-five population. Even with conservative assumptions, though, the total of all excess deaths must be far above 400,000.

All of these excess deaths should not be ascribed to sanctions. Some may be due to a variety of other causes. But all major studies make it clear that sanctions have been the primary cause, because of the sanctions� impact on food, medical care, water, and other health-related factors. Though oil-for-food has changed the situation studied by UNICEF and Garfield, resulting in less malnutrition, recent field reports suggest that infant mortality remains high, due to water-borne disease. (122) The mortality rate for under-five children has probably not continued to rise since the 1999 studies, but the rate apparently remains very much higher than that reported in Iraq before 1990.

In the face of such powerful evidence, the US and UK governments have sometimes practiced bold denial. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office told a BBC interviewer on February 26, 2001 �There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.� When denial has proved impossible, officials have occasionally fallen back on astonishingly callous affirmations. In a famous interview with Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations, Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes said: �We have heard that half a million children have died . . . is the price worth it? Albright replied, �I think this is a very hard choice, but the price � we think the price is worth it.� (123)
(Source)
 
Bells: Ok that would make sense but one would have to blame the whole international community for that. Do you happen to know how many or which countries opposed the resolution?
 
And even many UN insiders considered the sanctions inhumane not to mention ineffective as it had no impact on Saddam's rule
 
Bells: Ok that would make sense but one would have to blame the whole international community for that. Do you happen to know how many or which countries opposed the resolution?

From what I remember at the time, all the countries represented in the SC, bar two who absented, voted in the positive.

Yes, the world community is at fault for allowing it and taking part in it. But when word started to get out of the severe health issues and the fact that the sanctions played a part in the deaths of so many people, predominantly children, the US demanded that the sanctions not only remain in place as they were.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D7133EF931A15750C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

And the US kept to its word. The sanctions remained in place and the results were catastrophic. But according to Albright, "worth it".
 
And even many UN insiders considered the sanctions inhumane not to mention ineffective as it had no impact on Saddam's rule

A lot of research during and since then have stated quite plainly that the sanctions had the opposite affect. That instead of forcing the Iraqi people to bring down Saddam, it solidified his hold over Iraq.

This paper gives a good breakdown of the situation. Long but interesting to read if you have the time.

Anywho, I have to get going. Kids are up from their nap.
 
I beg to differ.

Their willingness to go along with and impose the sanctions led the the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, predominantly children.
Ok. But I"m pretty sure that all the people who were against the Iraq war were in favor of continuing sanctions! I don't recall anyone calling for letting Saddam off scott free? Do you?
 
I have two problems with the logic employed by S.A.M, Tiassa, and (apparently) Bells.

1. Who does have the right to make moral judgements if we go by that logic? It's not as if non-Western countries don't have an abysmal human rights record.

2. The logic oversimplifies. Assigning everyone of Western culture to the "West" and saying that the "West" has done bad things and thus all peoples of the West are responsible for bad things, is taking a collective viewpoint way too far.

By blaming an entire group of disparate people for something, you're assuming that all people in that group are the exact same and ignoring individual variations within that group. People like S.A.M and Tiassa condemn such stereotyping in regards to minorities such as blacks and Muslims, yet are more than willing to turn around and do the same to whites and Westerners.

You can disagree with the system and still be a member of it. Witness Tiassa, an American citizen who openly condemns the American nation. I wonder if he collects on the benefits provided by the American government?

The pertinant question here is: Why should I be held accountable for the behaviour of others, simply because I belong to a rather arbitrary grouping (ie. Westerners)?
 
Last edited:
Lepustimidus: The pertinant question here is: Why should I be held accountable for the behaviour of others, simply because we belong to a rather arbitrary grouping (ie. Westerners)?

You shouldn't
 
By this logic westerners should also get to take credit for the good things westerners have done. So I should be able to run up to a chinese guy in his car and say "get out of my car, I want to drive to my friend's house in it", as one tiny example of many millions.
Hmm, I guess I'd wear the burden of guilt for that kind of power.
 
Ok. But I"m pretty sure that all the people who were against the Iraq war were in favor of continuing sanctions! I don't recall anyone calling for letting Saddam off scott free? Do you?

Most were in favour of continuing sanctions, but with less severity. The US refused. As a result, it basically stayed as it was. Then the oil for food program was implemented, but even under that program, not enough food was entering the country. Medical supplies were also barred under the sanctions. Lets not forget, the idea behind the sanctions was the hope that the Iraqi people would rebel against Saddam. That when things became hard for them and coupled with the fact that Saddam would not back down, that the people would rise against the regime. What did happen was the complete reverse.

There is absolutely no excuse for the world's participation and support in and for the UN Sanctions against Iraq. Worse still, that even with mounting evidence from the UN itself, as well as from external human rights sources, the US and her allies continued to push for the continuation of the sanctions and the UN, and thus, the world community, lacked the balls (for lack of a better term) to stand up to the US and her allies. In short, all countries are responsible for allowing the sanction to continue and for kowtowing to US demands in the UN. Is the UN responsible? Yes. Is the US responsible? Yes. There is a plethora of information, from both sides of the fence, on this issue and both sides recognise that the US was at the center of the continuation of the sanctions in Iraq, even after reports of deaths, starvation and severe health issues arose right from the start. In short, the sanctions caused a disaster that could have been averted, if not prevented entirely. And what we are seeing today in Iraq is a response to the pain and suffering the Iraqi people were made to endure, not just under Saddam's regime, but also at the hands of the "West" with the first Gulf War, the Sanctions and now with the current war. We treated the Iraqi people like pawns in a game and it was despicable. It backfired on us and I suspect it is something that will haunt us one way or another for a hell of a long time in the future.

lepustimidus said:
I have two problems with the logic employed by S.A.M, Tiassa, and (apparently) Bells.

1. Who does have the right to make moral judgements if we go by that logic? It's not as if non-Western countries don't have an abysmal human rights record.

2. The logic oversimplifies. Assigning everyone of Western culture to the "West" and saying that the "West" has done bad things and thus all peoples of the West are responsible for bad things, is taking a collective viewpoint way too far.

By blaming an entire group of disparate people for something, you're assuming that all people in that group are the exact same and ignoring individual variations within that group. People like S.A.M and Tiassa condemn such stereotyping in regards to minorities such as blacks and Muslims, yet are more than willing to turn around and do the same to whites and Westerners.

You can disagree with the system and still be a member of it. Witness Tiassa, an American citizen who openly condemns the American nation. I wonder if he collects on the benefits provided by the American government?

The pertinant question here is: Why should I be held accountable for the behaviour of others, simply because we belong to a rather arbitrary grouping (ie. Westerners)?
You bring up an interesting point. Are we to blame for the actions of our Government and the organisations our Government's belong to? I don't think so.. not to a certain extent anyway. For example, if you know your Government is playing a huge part in the deaths of thousands of children a month in another country and you ignore that fact and vote them back into office, what does that say about you? I doubt the majority of Americans approved of the sanctions in Iraq, especially when the figures came out from UNICEF and other organisations. Are those individual Americans to blame? No. Could they have done something better? Maybe. Short of a coup, there was not much they could have done. It shows the issue that plagues so called democracies.. The Government does not do as the "people" desire. It didn't then and does not now.

My point, at least, I cannot speak for Tiassa and Sam, is that we are no longer in a position to point a finger of blame. We, in the "West", deemed ourselves morally superior... the bastions of human rights (as one example). But we have lost our way a great deal. The "West" can no longer cast moral judgments on others for doing things they are guilty of themselves. When people blame the "West", they aren't blaming the individuals who reside within the Western countries or those who are considered 'Westerners'. It is more the political and ideological beliefs that many Western countries espouse and demand of others, but fail to adhere to themselves. Hence the issue.

We cannot demand from others what we are unable to do ourselves.
 
Most were in favour of continuing sanctions, but with less severity. The US refused. As a result, it basically stayed as it was. Then the oil for food program was implemented, but even under that program, not enough food was entering the country. Medical supplies were also barred under the sanctions. Lets not forget, the idea behind the sanctions was the hope that the Iraqi people would rebel against Saddam. That when things became hard for them and coupled with the fact that Saddam would not back down, that the people would rise against the regime. What did happen was the complete reverse.
So, then, should sanctions be removed as a tool? If diplomacy fails, just go straight to war? Really, the idea that sanctions would work against a dictator was pretty stupid. Look at Cuba. They worked in South Africa, but only because that was not a dictatorship.
 
So, then, should sanctions be removed as a tool? If diplomacy fails, just go straight to war? Really, the idea that sanctions would work against a dictator was pretty stupid. Look at Cuba. They worked in South Africa, but only because that was not a dictatorship.

Economic sanctions, to some extent, can work.. but sadly, when applied to countries led by dictators, the innocent public suffer from the sanctions while their despotic leaders wallow in wealth. But when sanctions make the innocent public suffer, it is a total failure. And they always make the public suffer. Some more than others. We just need to recognise and admit that the public suffers instead of saying we're doing something great.

Sanctions are seen as one of the tools of diplomacy.

The sanctions in Iraq went many steps further. They prevented medicine and food items from entering the country. As well as water purification systems were seen as being possible WMD parts. Coupled with the fact that the West had bombed the water plants.. well.. speaks for itself really. It was an absolute disaster and how in the hell they were allowed to continue for so long is something the world community should be ashamed of.
 
Back
Top