So they gave Hilary a job washing dishes in the White House cafeteria.
She's doing an excellent job, too, no soapstains.
Yep, and in-between rinse cycles she thinks about how supporting the Iraqi War was her downfall which left her with nothing much to do besides dishes and her......
RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE Advises the President on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy, including the appoinment of diplomatic representatives to other nations, and on the acceptance or dismissal of representatives from other nations.
Participates in high-level negotiations with other countries, either bilaterally or as part of an international conference or organization, or appoints representatives to do so. This includes the negotiation of international treaties and other agreements.
I know it because it was the conventional wisdom in a timeline that actually occurred. It's not like I'm making it up.
The fact is you have a much laxer burden of proof for your own statements than you do for others.
And your use of 'timeline' is bizarre to say the least.
Not at all. I'm referring to your claim to know what would have happened in an alternate universe. "Timeline" is a term used in science fiction for this sort of speculation. As in, what would have happened if the Axis had won WW2. PK Dick wrote "The Man In The High Castle" about such a world, but he knew it was fiction and didn't claim that he "knew" his book was how it would all have worked out, which is what you are doing here.
Obama's speech against the Iraq war was one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Of course I can't "prove" that Hilary Clinton's support for that war was what killed her candidacy, but it sure didn't help. Disagree if you want. But at least here we're talking about things that actually happened.
Sanctions were in place because Saddam wouldn't cooperate with the UN inspectors at first. He didn't think the UN or intenational community were serious about them so he hid his weapons programs and tried to stand in the way of inspections. Saddam also killed 300,000 of his own people and bankrupted the country through two wars and what he did with the UN. But those facts probably don't matter either.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Saddam launched a concerted campaign to convince the international public that the sanctions were bad and destroying the country. One of the tactics he used was to parade dead babies in front of the international press and claim that they had died of malnutrition due to the sanctions. The problem was the government couldn't actually find that many babies that had died from that cause so they went to the morgues and hospitals and rounded up all the dead kids they could find, and kept them to show to the press later on even though that violated Islamic tradition that stresses burying the dead soon after their passing.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Then kill Saddam not babies.
Saddam launched a concerted campaign to convince the international public that the sanctions were bad and destroying the country. One of the tactics he used was to parade dead babies in front of the international press and claim that they had died of malnutrition due to the sanctions. The problem was the government couldn't actually find that many babies that had died from that cause so they went to the morgues and hospitals and rounded up all the dead kids they could find, and kept them to show to the press later on even though that violated Islamic tradition that stresses burying the dead soon after their passing.
WTF dude? Iraqi babies have died from US sanctions; Iraqi babies have died from US bombs and bullets; Iraqi babies have died from US depleted uranium. And not one single one of them has either violated international law or done a damned thing to threaten Americans. How many US babies have died, or were born with catastrophic birth defects due to the Iraqi war? You really just lost me all the way with that bullshit of a sidenote comment. Obviously your heart isn't actually in the right place.
I'm saying a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up and exploited by the regime to get rid of sanctions.
Here's an example:
"The London Observer amplified a BBC2 documentary which aired in 2002 and exposed Saddam?s tactics. ?Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages??three days?, ?four days?, written useful for the English-speaking media?are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of professional mourners.? There is only one problem, the program observes: because there are not enough dead babies around, the Regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, as is the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda. An Iraqi taxi driver interviewed on the program observed, ?They would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for mass processions.? A Western source visited an Iraqi hospital and, in the absence of his ?minder,? was shown ?a number of dead babies, lying stacked in a mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.?"
But don't let facts get in the way. Besides your main point is the U.S. is bad. I get it.
I'm saying a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up and exploited by the regime to get rid of sanctions.
Here's an example:
"The London Observer amplified a BBC2 documentary which aired in 2002 and exposed Saddam?s tactics. ?Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages??three days?, ?four days?, written useful for the English-speaking media?are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of professional mourners.? There is only one problem, the program observes: because there are not enough dead babies around, the Regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, as is the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda. An Iraqi taxi driver interviewed on the program observed, ?They would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for mass processions.? A Western source visited an Iraqi hospital and, in the absence of his ?minder,? was shown ?a number of dead babies, lying stacked in a mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.?"
But don't let facts get in the way. Besides your main point is the U.S. is bad. I get it.
Propaganda leading up to the 1st Gulf War under Bush Sr. said that the Iraqis went into hospitals in Kuwait and took babies out of incubators and stole the incubators.
This all turned out to be bullshit, but it was part of the "worse than Hitler" bullshit propaganda campaign that was being run then to support the war.
Hussein was a murderous dictator and getting rid of him was a worthwhile goal but it wasn't worth what the Iraq war cost us and the Iraqis - not just economically but in human lives. I'm not sure how anyone reaches the opposite conclusion without making up a whole lot of shit. There are plenty of countries run by people just as bad as Hussein. We could have an Invasion Of The Month if we wanted, but that would just be nuts.
really? there were a couple of robust studies done around 2000 that showed a significant increase in childhood mortality rates in south central iraq resulting from the first gulf war and the sanctions.
The first link doesn't work. I skimmed through the second article.
From the numbers that I have the following happened with Iraq's infant mortality. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the rate was 30 infant mortalities per 1,000 births. Sanctions were imposed in 1990 and really ruined the Iraqi economy, which hit a low in 1995. During that period mortality rates went up to 50 per 1,000. 1995 the oil for food program was started and then expanded over the rest of the 90s. That basically revived the economy, but mortality rates continued to rise. By 1999 it was up to 101 per 1,000. The reason was because the new income that came in with the oil for food program and the smuggling that Iraq was able to pull off using the system was pocketed by Saddam's henchmen and family and spent on weapons rather than going into services like health care, etc.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The first link doesn't work. I skimmed through the second article.
From the numbers that I have the following happened with Iraq's infant mortality. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the rate was 30 infant mortalities per 1,000 births. Sanctions were imposed in 1990 and really ruined the Iraqi economy, which hit a low in 1995. During that period mortality rates went up to 50 per 1,000. 1995 the oil for food program was started and then expanded over the rest of the 90s. That basically revived the economy, but mortality rates continued to rise. By 1999 it was up to 101 per 1,000. The reason was because[/b]
Sanctions. They never hurt the people in charge, only those on the lowest rung.
motown67, what a very perculiar thing to write. you're basically saying that the first gulf war, followed by UN imposed sanctions, resulted in a marked increase in the infant mortality rate. you then say that despite the oil for food program, the infant mortality rate continued to rise. proving what? that the sanctions didn't have a negative impact on the infant mortality rate? i don't get the logic.
by the way, the oil for food program did little to "basically revive the economy" apart from solidify legacy power structures within the country, through widespread corruption. i live in australia, and the corruption involved with the australian wheat board was shocking. australia, while giving hussein's regime multi-million dollar kickbacks, simulataneously went to war with Iraq. i think that's a fairly good definition of evil.
i think, based on what you wrote, that it is safe to say that the war, followed by the sanctions, resulted in a clear increase in the infant mortality rate.
What I'm saying is that after the Oil For Food Program started Iraq had the money to spend on services like health care which would've brought down the infant mortality rate along with other things but the government DIDN'T spend the money on that. It went into their pockets and into armaments because Saddam's main priority with the new money was to re-arm.
And the Oil for Food program did revive the economy after its nadir in 1995.
Here's Iraq's GDP numbers:
Iraq's GDP 1989 $38 bil 1996 $10.6 bil 2000 $30 bil 2001 $29 bil
Infant mortality rates have also improved since the US invasion to almost pre-Kuwait invasion/sanction rates.
Here's the numbers for infant mortality per 1,000 births:
I'm unsure what that has to do with what i was writing. you wrote: "I'm saying a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up and exploited by the regime to get rid of sanctions." i simply highlighted that it wasn't made up, that several robust studies showed that the war and sanctions had drastically increased infant mortality.
of course "Saddam's main priority with the new money was to re-arm", what would you do if the world's greatest military power was threatening you on a daily basis? i know what i'd do. The US is not the world's police, their continual threats of military force only cause horrendous dictators to re-arm and solidify their power.
and your last point - are you inferring that, as infant mortality rates have improved since the US invasion, that the people of Iraq have benefited from the invasion? surely not.
1) saddam's main priority was always Iran not the US. Even during the sanction period he did not consider the US a natural ally. His military had been destroyed by the gulf war and he gelt vulnerable to Iran who ha helped with the Shiite uprising in 1991. When he started getting money again his main priority was to rearm to deter Tehran not the Americans.
2) the numbers on infant mortality simply show that on that one category the country has recovered to what it once had. That still puts it toward the bottom of other countries in the region, buy also shows that despite all the problems the country still faces some things have gotten relatively better.
3) on my original statement I'll repeat, the story was exploited and exaggerated by the government to weaken international support for sanctions, and that when infant mortality really took off it was because of saddam's twisted prioities rather than the sanctions directly.
"3) on my original statement I'll repeat, the story was exploited and exaggerated by the government to weaken international support for sanctions, and that when infant mortality really took off it was because of saddam's twisted prioities rather than the sanctions directly."
there's a couple of issues with this point. the infant mortality rate almost doubled between '90 and '96, and you are saying it was exaggerated? such increases do not just pop up from nowhere. that directly contrdicts what you wrote that "a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up".
then between 96-99 it doubled again. if he was working in policy during that time, a drunken sailor could have predicted that any program that brought money into iraq after a ludicrous war and five years of sanctions that brought the country to a stand still, would have suffered from corruption. The US knew that hussein was a murderous dictator, they funded him during the iran-iraq war! that does not alter the fact that the sanctions were terribly poor policy, the only outcome of which was to hurt the most oppressed and embolden the powerful.
the best thing the US can do to stop the rise of such dictators is to stay the hell away, and not fund them. they should not have funded him during the iran-iraq war, period. the people of iraq, and the US, have been paying the price ever since, just because, in the words of reagan, the US "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran". If iran did overthrow that baath regime, the country would have become shia led, given that they make up to 60% of the country. this was not in US' interests.
"2)...some things have gotten relatively better". for anyone to even think this of iraq now is amazing. the iraq invasion was perhaps one of the greatest criminal acts in the recent era, causing the world's worst humanitarian crisis in decades.
"there's a couple of issues with this point. the infant mortality rate almost doubled between '90 and '96, and you are saying it was exaggerated? such increases do not just pop up from nowhere. that directly contrdicts what you wrote that "a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up". "
I'm saying that what the Iraqi government talked about and showed, i.e. the dead babies, was exaggerated and exploited by the regime.
So basically what you?re saying is that because the Iraq war was wrong, than Iraqis are cursed to live in hell, meaning nothing will ever get better for them.
Iraq is still a relatively poor, and struggling country, but to say that nothing has changed or gotten better is wrong.
1. Violence
From 2005-2007 Iraq had a civil war. During the height of the fighting in 2006-2007 2,000-3,000 people were being killed a month. There were an average of 50.9 mass casualty bombings during that year, and there were 1,500-1,800 security incidents a week. In 2006 27,000-34,000 Iraqis were killed.
Today attacks and deaths are at their lowest level ever since 2003. Since 2009 to the present there have been an average of around 400 deaths per month. In 2009 there were an average of 15.5 mass casualty bombings per month, and there are around 400 security incidents a week. Last year 3,100-4,600 people died.
In the first seven months of 2003 after the invasion was officially over an avg. of 578.8 Iraqis died a month. For 2009 an avg. of 388.7 Iraqis died.
Today the civil war has ended, most of the insurgents have switched sides, the public has turned its back on Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the militias are largely inactive.
2. GDP
In 1980 Iraq?s per capita GPD was $3,812. In 1989 it had dropped to $250, and then an all time low of $180 in 1994. In 2008 per capita GDP was approx. $3,100
Overall GDP has also risen to above pre Gulf War levels
Iraq?s GDP 1989 $38 bil 1996 $10.6 bil 2000 $30 bil 2003 $13.6 bil 2004 $25.7 bil 2005 $34.5 bil 2006 $48.5 bil 2007 $55.4 bil 2008 $84.7 bil
3. Education
More Iraqis are going to K-12 and college/post-graduate school than before.
1995/1996 students by grade level Kindergarten 88,000 1st-6th grade 2,900,000 7th-12th grade 861,000 10th-12th grade 293,000 University 233,000 Post-Graduate 8,000
2005/2006 students per grade level Kindergarten 82,000 1st-6th grade 4,100,000 7th-12th grade 1,019,000 10th-12th grade 472,000 University 353,000 Post-Graduate 15,500
4. Governance
Since 2005 Iraqis have voted on a temporary parliament, a new constitution, had two parliamentary elections, two provincial elections, and the Kurds have held provincial elections, and two parliamentary elections. Besides Lebanon, no other country in the Middle East has had that many opportunities to vote and replace their leaders because its full of autocrats and monarchies.
Look if you want to talk about negatives I can talk about negatives. Iraq has the largest threat of terrorism in the world, its government is dysfunctional, its at the bottom in most economic and social indicators compared to other countries in the region, there?s high under/unemployment and poverty, crime is running rampant, the prisons and jails are known for abuse and torture because the justice system is based upon confessions, etc. but Iraq is not a static country, and its? certainly not all shit just because the U.S. invasion was bad. Iraqis shouldn?t have to suffer because people didn?t like the war, and it makes all the complaints about it appear hypocritical because it seems like all they want is Iraqis to die and be victims, and don?t really care about them as people.
"I'm saying that what the Iraqi government talked about and showed, i.e. the dead babies, was exaggerated and exploited by the regime. "
Differing counts on child deaths during sanctions period:
Project on Defense Alternatives 170,000 children Columbia Univ. Prof. 345,000-530,000 (but included other factors besides sanctions) UNICEF 500,000 Iraqi Government 1.5 million
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Whether 1.5 million or "just" 170,000...equally deplorable!
when figures like that are trotted out as a source of pride for the US, i imagine how people would react if, say, after the indonesia invaded east timor, indonesia tried to say that despite all the dead civilians east timor is better for it because now twice as many people go on to do tertiary education. if someone tried to argue that point, they'd be laughed out of the room, but when the argument is made in reference to the US it totes makes complete sense. yeah right.
Comments
Like 3 days of bombing isn't a war. You are truly cracked.
If it's the right bomb, 10 minutes of bombing would do what 10 years of War can't.
The fact is you have a much laxer burden of proof for your own statements than you do for others.
And your use of 'timeline' is bizarre to say the least.
Yep, and in-between rinse cycles she thinks about how supporting the Iraqi War was her downfall which left her with nothing much to do besides dishes and her......
RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
Advises the President on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy, including the appoinment of diplomatic representatives to other nations, and on the acceptance or dismissal of representatives from other nations.
Participates in high-level negotiations with other countries, either bilaterally or as part of an international conference or organization, or appoints representatives to do so. This includes the negotiation of international treaties and other agreements.
Not at all. I'm referring to your claim to know what would have happened in an alternate universe. "Timeline" is a term used in science fiction for this sort of speculation. As in, what would have happened if the Axis had won WW2. PK Dick wrote "The Man In The High Castle" about such a world, but he knew it was fiction and didn't claim that he "knew" his book was how it would all have worked out, which is what you are doing here.
Obama's speech against the Iraq war was one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Of course I can't "prove" that Hilary Clinton's support for that war was what killed her candidacy, but it sure didn't help. Disagree if you want. But at least here we're talking about things that actually happened.
Invading and occupying a country is very different from dropping a few bombs. You're the "cracked" one if you can't see that.
This isn't rocket science.
You're right. They should have sent in Max and Agent 99.
I ride for this!!!
whatever the fuck it is, I ride.
Saddam launched a concerted campaign to convince the international public that the sanctions were bad and destroying the country. One of the tactics he used was to parade dead babies in front of the international press and claim that they had died of malnutrition due to the sanctions. The problem was the government couldn't actually find that many babies that had died from that cause so they went to the morgues and hospitals and rounded up all the dead kids they could find, and kept them to show to the press later on even though that violated Islamic tradition that stresses burying the dead soon after their passing.
WTF dude? Iraqi babies have died from US sanctions; Iraqi babies have died from US bombs and bullets; Iraqi babies have died from US depleted uranium. And not one single one of them has either violated international law or done a damned thing to threaten Americans. How many US babies have died, or were born with catastrophic birth defects due to the Iraqi war? You really just lost me all the way with that bullshit of a sidenote comment. Obviously your heart isn't actually in the right place.
Here's an example:
"The London Observer amplified a BBC2 documentary which aired in 2002 and exposed Saddam?s tactics. ?Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages??three days?, ?four days?, written useful for the English-speaking media?are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of professional mourners.? There is only one problem, the program observes: because there are not enough dead babies around, the Regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, as is the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda. An Iraqi taxi driver interviewed on the program observed, ?They would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for mass processions.? A Western source visited an Iraqi hospital and, in the absence of his ?minder,? was shown ?a number of dead babies, lying stacked in a mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.?"
But don't let facts get in the way. Besides your main point is the U.S. is bad. I get it.
Propaganda leading up to the 1st Gulf War under Bush Sr. said that the Iraqis went into hospitals in Kuwait and took babies out of incubators and stole the incubators.
This all turned out to be bullshit, but it was part of the "worse than Hitler" bullshit propaganda campaign that was being run then to support the war.
Hussein was a murderous dictator and getting rid of him was a worthwhile goal but it wasn't worth what the Iraq war cost us and the Iraqis - not just economically but in human lives. I'm not sure how anyone reaches the opposite conclusion without making up a whole lot of shit. There are plenty of countries run by people just as bad as Hussein. We could have an Invasion Of The Month if we wanted, but that would just be nuts.
Like the invasion of Iraq was nuts.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673600022893
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html
From the numbers that I have the following happened with Iraq's infant mortality. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the rate was 30 infant mortalities per 1,000 births. Sanctions were imposed in 1990 and really ruined the Iraqi economy, which hit a low in 1995. During that period mortality rates went up to 50 per 1,000. 1995 the oil for food program was started and then expanded over the rest of the 90s. That basically revived the economy, but mortality rates continued to rise. By 1999 it was up to 101 per 1,000. The reason was because the new income that came in with the oil for food program and the smuggling that Iraq was able to pull off using the system was pocketed by Saddam's henchmen and family and spent on weapons rather than going into services like health care, etc.
Sanctions. They never hurt the people in charge, only those on the lowest rung.
by the way, the oil for food program did little to "basically revive the economy" apart from solidify legacy power structures within the country, through widespread corruption. i live in australia, and the corruption involved with the australian wheat board was shocking. australia, while giving hussein's regime multi-million dollar kickbacks, simulataneously went to war with Iraq. i think that's a fairly good definition of evil.
i think, based on what you wrote, that it is safe to say that the war, followed by the sanctions, resulted in a clear increase in the infant mortality rate.
my apologies for the broken link - try again http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02289-3/abstract
What I'm saying is that after the Oil For Food Program started Iraq had the money to spend on services like health care which would've brought down the infant mortality rate along with other things but the government DIDN'T spend the money on that. It went into their pockets and into armaments because Saddam's main priority with the new money was to re-arm.
And the Oil for Food program did revive the economy after its nadir in 1995.
Here's Iraq's GDP numbers:
Iraq's GDP
1989 $38 bil
1996 $10.6 bil
2000 $30 bil
2001 $29 bil
Infant mortality rates have also improved since the US invasion to almost pre-Kuwait invasion/sanction rates.
Here's the numbers for infant mortality per 1,000 births:
1984-1989 30
1990-1994 50
1999 101
2004 32
2006 35
of course "Saddam's main priority with the new money was to re-arm", what would you do if the world's greatest military power was threatening you on a daily basis? i know what i'd do. The US is not the world's police, their continual threats of military force only cause horrendous dictators to re-arm and solidify their power.
and your last point - are you inferring that, as infant mortality rates have improved since the US invasion, that the people of Iraq have benefited from the invasion? surely not.
2) the numbers on infant mortality simply show that on that one category the country has recovered to what it once had. That still puts it toward the bottom of other countries in the region, buy also shows that despite all the problems the country still faces some things have gotten relatively better.
3) on my original statement I'll repeat, the story was exploited and exaggerated by the government to weaken international support for sanctions, and that when infant mortality really took off it was because of saddam's twisted prioities rather than the sanctions directly.
there's a couple of issues with this point. the infant mortality rate almost doubled between '90 and '96, and you are saying it was exaggerated? such increases do not just pop up from nowhere. that directly contrdicts what you wrote that "a lot of that story about Iraqi children dying from sanctions was made up".
then between 96-99 it doubled again. if he was working in policy during that time, a drunken sailor could have predicted that any program that brought money into iraq after a ludicrous war and five years of sanctions that brought the country to a stand still, would have suffered from corruption. The US knew that hussein was a murderous dictator, they funded him during the iran-iraq war! that does not alter the fact that the sanctions were terribly poor policy, the only outcome of which was to hurt the most oppressed and embolden the powerful.
the best thing the US can do to stop the rise of such dictators is to stay the hell away, and not fund them. they should not have funded him during the iran-iraq war, period. the people of iraq, and the US, have been paying the price ever since, just because, in the words of reagan, the US "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran". If iran did overthrow that baath regime, the country would have become shia led, given that they make up to 60% of the country. this was not in US' interests.
"2)...some things have gotten relatively better". for anyone to even think this of iraq now is amazing. the iraq invasion was perhaps one of the greatest criminal acts in the recent era, causing the world's worst humanitarian crisis in decades.
I'm saying that what the Iraqi government talked about and showed, i.e. the dead babies, was exaggerated and exploited by the regime.
Iraq is still a relatively poor, and struggling country, but to say that nothing has changed or gotten better is wrong.
1. Violence
From 2005-2007 Iraq had a civil war. During the height of the fighting in 2006-2007 2,000-3,000 people were being killed a month. There were an average of 50.9 mass casualty bombings during that year, and there were 1,500-1,800 security incidents a week. In 2006 27,000-34,000 Iraqis were killed.
Today attacks and deaths are at their lowest level ever since 2003. Since 2009 to the present there have been an average of around 400 deaths per month. In 2009 there were an average of 15.5 mass casualty bombings per month, and there are around 400 security incidents a week. Last year 3,100-4,600 people died.
In the first seven months of 2003 after the invasion was officially over an avg. of 578.8 Iraqis died a month. For 2009 an avg. of 388.7 Iraqis died.
Today the civil war has ended, most of the insurgents have switched sides, the public has turned its back on Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the militias are largely inactive.
2. GDP
In 1980 Iraq?s per capita GPD was $3,812. In 1989 it had dropped to $250, and then an all time low of $180 in 1994. In 2008 per capita GDP was approx. $3,100
Overall GDP has also risen to above pre Gulf War levels
Iraq?s GDP
1989 $38 bil
1996 $10.6 bil
2000 $30 bil
2003 $13.6 bil
2004 $25.7 bil
2005 $34.5 bil
2006 $48.5 bil
2007 $55.4 bil
2008 $84.7 bil
3. Education
More Iraqis are going to K-12 and college/post-graduate school than before.
1995/1996 students by grade level
Kindergarten 88,000
1st-6th grade 2,900,000
7th-12th grade 861,000
10th-12th grade 293,000
University 233,000
Post-Graduate 8,000
2005/2006 students per grade level
Kindergarten 82,000
1st-6th grade 4,100,000
7th-12th grade 1,019,000
10th-12th grade 472,000
University 353,000
Post-Graduate 15,500
4. Governance
Since 2005 Iraqis have voted on a temporary parliament, a new constitution, had two parliamentary elections, two provincial elections, and the Kurds have held provincial elections, and two parliamentary elections. Besides Lebanon, no other country in the Middle East has had that many opportunities to vote and replace their leaders because its full of autocrats and monarchies.
Look if you want to talk about negatives I can talk about negatives. Iraq has the largest threat of terrorism in the world, its government is dysfunctional, its at the bottom in most economic and social indicators compared to other countries in the region, there?s high under/unemployment and poverty, crime is running rampant, the prisons and jails are known for abuse and torture because the justice system is based upon confessions, etc. but Iraq is not a static country, and its? certainly not all shit just because the U.S. invasion was bad. Iraqis shouldn?t have to suffer because people didn?t like the war, and it makes all the complaints about it appear hypocritical because it seems like all they want is Iraqis to die and be victims, and don?t really care about them as people.
Differing counts on child deaths during sanctions period:
Project on Defense Alternatives 170,000 children
Columbia Univ. Prof. 345,000-530,000 (but included other factors besides sanctions)
UNICEF 500,000
Iraqi Government 1.5 million