What About the Iraqi Children?

[Jem]

What About the Iraqi Children?
by Charlotte Aldebron
March 6, 2003



The following is a transcript of a speech given by now 13-year-old Charlotte Aldebron at a peace rally in Maine.



When people think about bombing Iraq, they see a picture in their heads of Saddam Hussein in a military uniform, or maybe soldiers with big black mustaches carrying guns, or the mosaic of George Bush Senior on the lobby floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel with the word "criminal." But guess what? More than half of Iraq’s 24 million people are children under the age of 15. That’s 12 million kids. Kids like me. Well, I’m almost 13, so some are a little older, and some a lot younger, some boys instead of girls, some with brown hair, not red. But kids who are pretty much like me just the same. So take a look at me—a good long look. Because I am what you should see in your head when you think about bombing Iraq. I am what you are going to destroy.

If I am lucky, I will be killed instantly, like the three hundred children murdered by your "smart" bombs in a Baghdad bomb shelter on February 16, 1991. The blast caused a fire so intense that it flash-burned outlines of those children and their mothers on the walls; you can still peel strips of blackened skin—souvenirs of your victory—from the stones.

But maybe I won’t be lucky and I’ll die slowly, like 14-year-old Ali Faisal, who right now is in the "death ward" of the Baghdad children’s hospital. He has malignant lymphoma—cancer—caused by the depleted uranium in your Gulf War missiles. Or maybe I will die painfully and needlessly like18-month-old Mustafa, whose vital organs are being devoured by sand fly parasites. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mustafa could be totally cured with just $25 worth of medicine, but there is none of this medicine because of your sanctions.

Or maybe I won’t die at all but will live for years with the psychological damage that you can’t see from the outside, like Salman Mohammed, who even now can’t forget the terror he lived through with his little sisters when you bombed Iraq in 1991. Salman’s father made the whole family sleep in the same room so that they would all survive together, or die together. He still has nightmares about the air raid sirens.

Or maybe I will be orphaned like Ali, who was three when you killed his father in the Gulf War. Ali scraped at the dirt covering his father’s grave every day for three years calling out to him, "It’s all right Daddy, you can come out now, the men who put you here have gone away." Well, Ali, you’re wrong. It looks like those men are coming back.

Or I maybe I will make it in one piece, like Luay Majed, who remembers that the Gulf War meant he didn’t have to go to school and could stay up as late as he wanted. But today, with no education, he tries to live by selling newspapers on the street.

Imagine that these are your children—or nieces or nephews or neighbors. Imagine your son screaming from the agony of a severed limb, but you can’t do anything to ease the pain or comfort him. Imagine your daughter crying out from under the rubble of a collapsed building, but you can’t get to her. Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes.

This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq. Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as "guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much." Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that "A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret."

Back in elementary school I was taught to solve problems with other kids not by hitting or name-calling, but by talking and using "I" messages. The idea of an "I" message was to make the other person understand how bad his or her actions made you feel, so that the person would sympathize with you and stop it. Now I am going to give you an "I" message. Only it’s going to be a "We" message. "We" as in all the children in Iraq who are waiting helplessly for something bad to happen. "We" as in the children of the world who don’t make any of the decisions but have to suffer all the consequences. "We" as in those whose voices are too small and too far away to be heard.

We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.

We feel angry when people want to kill us or injure us or steal our future.

We feel sad because all we want is a mom and a dad who we know will be there the next day.

And, finally, we feel confused—because we don’t even know what we did wrong.



http://www.antiwar.com/orig/aldebron1.html

[Chocoholic]

What about the American children who's parents aren't with them because they were brutally murdered on 9/11? What about the american children who were on those planes? What about the Iraqi children that Saddam has killed? Yes, the US had to kill some innocent people, but Saddam would have killed many more.

[BrandonS]

I don't mean to minimize the tragedy of civilian casualties, but are you aware that your argument could be interpreted as suggesting that no war is or has ever been justified, including World War 2? Is that what you mean to say?

[theshark8777]

Why can't Jem post her own opinions instead of cutting and pasting articles from other sources. Think for yourself for a change...

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Snoopy
What about the American children who's parents aren't with them because they were brutally murdered on 9/11? What about the american children who were on those planes? What about the Iraqi children that Saddam has killed? Yes, the US had to kill some innocent people, but Saddam would have killed many more. STILL!--No evidence of Iraq ties to 9/11. It is just sickening the way people can justify anything we have or will do just by plugging 9/11 into their statements. 9/11 is irrelevant to this invasion on Iraq. No WMD's have been found, no al Qaida connection has been made to Hussein, no case indicating that Iraq had anything at all to do with attacking The World Trade Center or The Pentagon has been made.

[BrandonS]

The US invaded Iraq for two GOOD reasons. The first and primary reason is to find and eliminate weaponds of mass destruction. The second is that while we were doing that, it was good to be able to free millions of people from one of the worst dictators of modern times. If one single nuclear weapon were to be detonated in a large American city, you would likely have a million dead, a million wounded, and another million who whould die of cancer over the next couple of decades. And that's if just one single nuke were smuggled in and detonated. A bioweapon could produce the same level of damage, and nerve gas could kill quite a few people too. With stakes this high, it is justified to invade the country of a horrible dictator who has previously worked hard to obtain the weapons, and seems to be concealing more. If Iraq were to obtain this kind of technology, it could use it to blackmail the world, or, worse use it and kill millions. At the least, it could re-invade Kuwait and Iran with impunity. If every horrible dictator and a dozen terrorist groups were to obtain these weapons, they would be used, and the world would fall into a dark ages. Better to stop Hussein now while he's weak, and can be beaten in three weaks with gunpowder weapons, than to wait until it's too late. I believe he has the weapons hidden in some way, but even if he doesn't, we were still justified in playing the odds. I'm sure most of the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of him, just as most of the French, were happy when we threw the Nazi government out of their country.

[Kitt]

We didn't need an invasion on the county of Iraq to get rid of Hussein. A case for crimes against humanity could have been made and carried out wthout the invasion. According to your qualifications and justifications for war we have more wars to fight and bad actors to depose then we could possibly ever afford. And here is the really bad news: Afghanistan and Iraq were the weakest and most rag tag of any of the countries or dictators we could have chosen to invade. If we keep this up we ain't gonna have a dime left for anything in this country except for providing for the rich and powerful who are "leading" us through this mess. Now that we have managed to bolster bin Ladens recruitment campaign our safety is more in question now than it ever was before.

[Kitt]

Will Durst
WorkingForChange
04.11.03


I read the news today, oh boy...
Network executives pick up war for another 13 weeks


CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, A MOST HOSPITABLE COLLEGE TOWN, AND THE MOTHER LODE OF VIRGINIA LIBERALISM, WHICH IS A LOT LIKE SAYING THE MOST REPUBLICAN BLOCK IN BERKELEY.
I watched the War Channel today, and guess what: The war is over. The problem is, the ratings were so good that network executives picked up the show for another 13 weeks, so they're busy trying to develop another plotline.

We know who won… we did. The swarthy guy's giant bronze head was dragged down the street and ridden by young boys like a dead mechanical bull. Of course you know what this means: 40 years from now, we're all going to be driving Iraqi made automobiles. "Dude, you got a new Fedayeen. Sweet." Still, you'd think the intensity of the political rancor would diminish. But no: both the pro and anti war camps have drawn their lines as sharp as the glance of a substitute teacher towards a tardy cheerleader after the bell has rung for remedial Penmanship class.

And yeah, I've seen the polls, but I still think the vast majority of us fit somewhere in between the rabid swings of the pendulum. One side screams, "If you don't favor saving Iraq by reducing it to rubble the size of coffee grounds you're inviting Saddam to rape my mother," while the other group maintains "If you don't think George W Bush should dismantle the military and sell the pieces off to feed the poor you're a blood drenched killing machine flossing with the intestines of tiny tubercular babies."

People, its time to stop whining about whether the war was moral or not and time to start whining about whether the reconstruction of Iraq will be moral or not. Bush has promised the UN will have a vital role in rebuilding Iraq. Can't you just imagine the UN's vital role? "Hey, why don't you guys use your blue helmets to collect some rain water and wash the blood off the tracks of that tank?"

I somehow feel the UN's promised role will be as vital as that promised White House probe of Enron was vigorous. All I know is some sort of police presence needs to be exhibited now, unless you prefer the next predominate profession in Iraq to be professional looter. And after all, that's Halliburton's job.

[BrandonS]

And suppose this case against Hussein for crimes against humanity were successfully made while he was ruling Baghdad with an iron fist. How would his extradition to The Hague to stand trial be achieved? Who would go into Iraq and force him to come along, while his army and police force tried to protect him? Diplomats? Lawyers? And as for us having more wars to fight, all I can say is that if dozens of countries and terrorist groups acquire weapons of mass destruction, it is unrealistic to think that they won't be used. Do you want to live in a world in which every few months a whole city somewhere in the world is obliterated? If nothing is done, it is inevitable that more and more groups will obtain WMDs, and if that happens, it is inevitable that they will be used. I don't advocate invading every country that tries to obtain WMD technology, but certainly homicidal madmen, who show a desire to invade their neighbors, and a willingness to use these weapons, cannot be allowed to have them. I, for one, don't want to wake up one morning and read that L.A. or New York was obliterated overnight, because someone smuggled the pieces of a WMD into the U.S.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS
And suppose this case against Hussein for crimes against humanity were successfully made while he was ruling Baghdad with an iron fist. How would his extradition to The Hague to stand trial be achieved? Who would go into Iraq and force him to come along, while his army and police force tried to protect him? Diplomats? Lawyers? And as for us having more wars to fight, all I can say is that if dozens of countries and terrorist groups acquire weapons of mass destruction, it is unrealistic to think that they won't be used. Do you want to live in a world in which every few months a whole city somewhere in the world is obliterated? If nothing is done, it is inevitable that more and more groups will obtain WMDs, and if that happens, it is inevitable that they will be used. I don't advocate invading every country that tries to obtain WMD technology, but certainly homicidal madmen, who show a desire to invade their neighbors, and a willingness to use these weapons, cannot be allowed to have them. I, for one, don't want to wake up one morning and read that L.A. or New York was obliterated overnight, because someone smuggled the pieces of a WMD into the U.S. I see that the tactic of fear has worked well on you. We just spent hundreds of billions of dollars on One invasion. How much money do you think it would have taken to convince anyone who needed to be convinced to turn over Hussein?

What makes you think think that the Arab world wants to conquer America? The Arab world simply doesn't want to BE conquered by America. Why would Hussein or any other dictator bomb America with a nuclear blast? And what do you think they would expect to become of them if they were to do that? How is that the Soviet Union over a span of 30 years never did what you say some little dictator has plans on doing? This is reactionary nonsense.

There you and others go again with the "if nothing is done" line. Is there no line between invasion and diplomacy? What ever happened to REAL coalitions? Coalitions that group together for the comon good of the planet? We nor Europe want WMD's to be proliferated throughout the world. But now that we have made it clear to all who may feel threatened by us that aquiring WMD's is one way of keeping the US at bay, keeping the US from invading, the possibilty of them working to aquire WMD's has jumped a wholliping lot. North Korea figured that out. They have them, so we vitually ignore them. Iraq doesn't have them, so we invade them.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Kitt
We didn't need an invasion on the county of Iraq to get rid of Hussein. A case for crimes against humanity could have been made and carried out wthout the invasion.

OK, how?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BJL


OK, how? Read post above.

[°Bubbly Blonde°]

Originally posted by Kitt
Read post above. which one?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BubbleLuvGrl026
which one? The one above BJL's post. The one I wrote saying that billions of dollars spent on invasion could have been spent on convincing Hussein's henchmen and his populace to turn him over. Actually it wouldn't have taken anywhere near that much money. The point is we could have gotten Hussein without getting the people of Iraq in the process. And that would have been a lesson to mischeivious dictators. It hasn't been lost on other bad actors througout the world that we can't afford to use this 'bomb the Slit out of each and every country policy' for very long. And it hasn't been lost on them that the weaker they appear to be the more likely we are to invade them. Besides, the perpetrators of 9-11, al Qaida, arent' even a country. So they remain intact and scattered all over the planet rather than in one space the size of Texas or California.

[BrandonS]

I don't think that a financial reward would have resulted in anyone in Iraq turning over Hussein to a world court, any more than offering the former Soviets or current Chinese a reward would result in them turning over their dictators, for the simple reason that people in a dictatorship don't have the power to turn over the dictator. And besides, it's not clear how much good it would do unless a good many people at the top of the government were also removed.

As far as WMD go, the problem is the advance of technology. We're entering a period when small countries or even private groups might acquire these weapons, one single use of which could kill a million people. The whole Arab world doesn't have to want to conquer us. It only takes a few people with a WMD to wipe out an American city. What kept this from happening in the past was that the weapons were much harder to acquire. Only a few large countries had them, and the Soviets, for all of their flaws, were at least sane enough to be deterred by the threat of retaliation. If it gets to the point where numerous countries and terrorist groups have the weapons, they will certainly be used by someone. You ask "what do you think they expect would become of them if they were to do that (use a WMD in America)?" First of all, how would we even know who did it, particularly if it were a nuke smuggled into the US, that vaporized the whole area in which it was detonated? We would have to painstakingly try to prove that it was Iraq or their agents, while they denied all knowledge, and publicly deplored the attack on us. If it were terrorists that Iraq had given the weapons to, they might well not even have a "home address" to which retribution could be directed. Also, some of these terrorist appear willing to die to accomplish their goals, and a suicidal attacker, can, by definition, not be deterred by threats of retribution. And anyway, if we gambled that Iraq could be deterred, and lost the bet, we would be in a situation where some huge number of our citizens was dead or wounded, and our next move, as you point out, would be to launch a massive retaliation, which would kill a huge number of them, almost all of whom would be innocent. It is not intelligent for us to allow such a doomsday scenario to come about. Far better to take Hussein out now while he's still weak and we can do it with conventional weapons, and without deliberately aiming something like a nuke at civilians. This isn't the 1930s. It no longer takes a large country with a powerful armada and a strong industrial base to harm us. Now anyone who can smuggle the pieces of a WMD into the country can strike a crippling blow against us, the likes of which we've never seen. Any group that has a few million dollars and can acquire a few physicists, biologists, or chemists could do it. We can't guard every conceivable potential target, against every conceivable form of attack, 24 hours a day, forever. This leaves us with no choice but to aggressively prevent certain groups from acquiring these weapons.

[Kitt]

Frankly, Brandon, I can't believe that you think Americans are the only people on the planet with any redeaming qualities. We should just obliterate everyone else on the planet, one country at a time, because they, unlike us, pose a threat to humanity.

[BrandonS]

I think that's a slight misquote. What I think I said is that when a manifestly evil dictator, with a track record of invading other countries and building WMDs, refuses all entreaties to stop, it is better for us to stop him, than to wake up one morning and find that American cities have been destroyed by weapons so powerful that one single use could potentially kill a million people.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS
I think that's a slight misquote. What I think I said is that when a manifestly evil dictator, with a track record of invading other countries and building WMDs, refuses all entreaties to stop, it is better for us to stop him, than to wake up one morning and find that American cities have been destroyed by weapons so powerful that one single use could potentially kill a million people. How is that any different from the scenario that we averted without invasion with the Soviets. I know you say badasses will get the stuff and use it. Well, the Soviets had badasses and were in contact with rogue badasses. The situation you insist will come to pass if we don't slaughter everyone we think is suspect was not resorted to back then. I think we'd better stay with that restraint policy. People like Hussein have been around forever. They haven't just cropped up in the past 15 years of history. If we can't find a better way than military might to keep the world safe then we are in trouble. Because there is no way that we can maintain order with threats and action of threats without the majority of the world in our camp. Which at the present time it is not.

[BrandonS]

Bad people have been around forever, but prior to 1945, most of this technology didn't exist (both nukes and germ warfare started at about that time), and only recently has it come within the reach of small counties and well financed terrorist groups. As technology marches onward, we can expect this tend to continue, with smaller and smaller groups being able to acquire more and more deadly weapons. It's like computing power. When I was a kid, it took a big company to afford a computer, pathetically weak by today's standards, and it was very large and bulky. Now any school kid who saves up his money can aqquire a laptop more powerful that the biggest computers of a few decades ago, which can easily be concealed in a briefcase or whatever. If we let everyone and his brother acquire weapons of such power, we had better get ready to start burying our dead, because someone somewhere will use one. When a modern day Hitler-like figure arises, and starts developing WMDs, he has to be asked to stop, and if he won't, he has to be stopped. The advance of technology is beginning to place the human race in a very precarious position. When you get to the point where you have weapons that are within the reach of many people, once single use of one of which can do damage on this scale, you have a serious problem.

I knew that if I posted here, I'd get into a big argument. I'm going back to my sitcoms. But, just so you know, I'm right.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS

I knew that if I posted here, I'd get into a big argument. I'm going back to my sitcoms. But, just so you know, I'm right. And you call Hussein a dictator, lol.

[Jem]

Originally posted by BrandonS
But, just so you know, I'm right.

War isn't right.

[BrandonS]

So, you would have opposed the United States participation in World War 2, the American Revolutionary War, etc., right?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt Frankly, Brandon, I can't believe that you think Americans are the only people on the planet with any redeaming qualities. We should just obliterate everyone else on the planet, one country at a time, because they, unlike us, pose a threat to humanity.
Hey, good idea, Kitt! Now you're making sense. But we don't have to obliterate every single country... we'll keep England, Spain, Norway, Australia, Finland, and a few others. As long as they behave themselves.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by BrandonS
So, you would have opposed the United States participation in World War 2, the American Revolutionary War, etc., right?
Good luck, Brandon! You're trying to reason with a liberal. :eek:
Some of which think no wars should never have been fought (like WWI and WWII).
These libs are really funny when they say we should have taken care of Saddam w/out an invasion. That's like saying we should have kicked the Germans out of France w/out an invasion! I guess we should have asked them "nicely" to please leave.
Anyway, you can't reason with a madman like Saddam, and you can't expect him to walk into a court for trial. And, you cannot "find" him without some sort of force. As for the U.N. to deal with Saddam... :lol: :lol:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Jem
War isn't right.
Is killing thousands of citizens (and children) right? (That's what Saddam and his henchmen had been doing for 23 years.)
Is building and hiding WMD right?
Is breaking 17 U.N. resolutions for the last 12 years right? Resolutions which were agreed to (by Iraq) for a cease-fire, but could resume if these resolutions were broken.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

.
These libs are really funny when they say we should have taken care of Saddam w/out an invasion. That's like saying we should have kicked the Germans out of France w/out an invasion! I guess we should have asked them "nicely" to please leave. I'll tell you what Fleet. I'll try to keep track of how many times you make slit up. Keeping track of your crap is a tall order, and expecting that you'll fend for your crap that you're called on is not something that I can expect from you, I've noticed. No one I have ever heard who has said that removing Hussein from power has said that it could have been accomplished by simply asking him to please leave. Except of course for the Bush Administration. They pretended to try that approach.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

Hey, good idea, Kitt! Now you're making sense. But we don't have to obliterate every single country... we'll keep England, Spain, Norway, Australia, Finland, and a few others. As long as they behave themselves. "WE'LL keep"? Yeah, that's what I thought. You lost what little grip you had on your language there. "We'll keep". Yeah. That's what I figured you had in mind for "liberated" Iraq. It's ours now. Right?

[BrandonS]

Thanks for agreeing with my point, Fleet, but on the whole, I think the best thing for me to do is try and stop posting to this topic, if I can, because I find it very aggravating and not very rewarding.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by BrandonS
Thanks for agreeing with my point, Fleet, but on the whole, I think the best thing for me to do is try and stop posting to this topic, if I can, because I find it very aggravating and not very rewarding.
Yes, it does get aggravating at times, but it is also very entertaining! These libs keep digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole- being proven wrong over and over. I was going to say you can only respond to the really ridiculous liberal statements, but, even then, that is almost a full-time job!
Keep posting if you can- we need more people here with brains and common-sense.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
"WE'LL keep"? Yeah, that's what I thought. You lost what little grip you had on your language there. "We'll keep". Yeah. That's what I figured you had in mind for "liberated" Iraq. It's ours now. Right?
Yeah, we "have" Iraq. Let's see, what country can the mean 'ol U.S. take over now? How about France? That would be easy, since they are used to surrendering. Or maybe another easy one, like some country in Africa. How about Chad? They can even help us in the next election... counting "chads" that have fallen off the ballots.

(In case you still have not figured it out- I am joking... it's a JOKE!)
If you really think the U.S. is planning to take over countries, your hatred for the U.S. is worse than I thought. BTW, two of our aircraft carriers have left the Gulf region and are on the way back home. What happened- I thought we were going to invade all of the middle east? Hey, Bush, bring those ships back. How can we start "pre-emptive" wars if our ships are leaving the area?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
I'll tell you what Fleet. I'll try to keep track of how many times you make slit up. Keeping track of your crap is a tall order, and expecting that you'll fend for your crap that you're called on is not something that I can expect from you, I've noticed. No one I have ever heard who has said that removing Hussein from power has said that it could have been accomplished by simply asking him to please leave. Except of course for the Bush Administration. They pretended to try that approach.
Making what up?
The Bush Aministration DID go through the U.N. No pretending about it. The result showed us how useless the U.N. is. (And how anti-American France, Germany and Russia are.) Maybe they should stick to doing something they can handle- like organizng picnics.

[bandito]

Originally posted by Fleet

Making what up?
The Bush Aministration DID go through the U.N. No pretending about it. The result showed us how useless the U.N. is. (And how anti-American France, Germany and Russia are.) Maybe they should stick to doing something they can handle- like organizng picnics. :lol:

[Fleet]

On second thought, the U.N. probably could not handle a couple of rowdy 10-year-old kids at a picnic. I was going to say the U.N. can take up sewing, but they would probably accidentally stick themselves with pins!

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet
I was going to say the U.N. can take up sewing, but they would probably accidentally stick themselves with pins!
No, that sounds more like George Bush.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
No, that sounds more like George Bush.
Well, since Bush led a very successful war to remove Saddam, it would more likely happen to Al Gore. :D