Mass murder of Afghan infants by US, UK, NATO & Australia

C4A is something unique which many countries rarely bother to reflect on. Credit Germany and Japan, their prides were hurt but they didn't live in reactionary denial.

Actually the death rate for infants in Afghanistan has improved considerably since the NATO occupation. THat it is still 7% today is tragic, but blame the 7th century mentality of the Taliban for that.

As far as the west goes, nothing mentioned above rates any kind of apology.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Barack Hussein Obama (BHO), Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, George Brown, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Stephen Harper, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and their war criminal associates and underlings should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including the mass murder of children.

Obama-- guilty of mass murder of children? Surely you jest, Gideon!

Dr Gideon,

I really appreciate your voice of concern for the innocent victims of wars in which the real victims are for the most part innocents who get caught between the line of fire. I appreciate that the United nations has published these report of horrifying crimes against humanity as a part of its research and findings, hopefully to raise the concious level of mankind, but what I am really concerned is that amount of actions taken in the first place by United nations (and ofcourse the real powers controlling the UN) to prevent these events is very little or none. As the saying goes "prevention is better than cure". All these events of killing and mass murder of innocents directly or indirectly that have happened could have been prevented if a wise move was made by the so called world leaders in the past. The world just sees reactions and actions to reactions rather than a long term plan to avert the happenings.

Surely the world is a comlicated place where there are people with concience who are silent simply because if they speak out, either there voices are silenced or the mishief makers make bigger noises and are heard more in the news. The bad news - made by the mischief makers- spreads faster than the news of act of goodness.

And then their are others who are in only for riducle and fun of those who are suffering, always living in the narrow dark abyss of their minds.

Well krishna-167929 basically spoke for me.

I am personally embarrassed I actually bothered to read this seed.

Mass murder of Afghan infants by US, UK, NATO and Australia

Ah yes...for those who voted for Obama & regret it, and have now decided that he is a Zionist flunky (or something like that :) you can express your views here: The Official I am Sorry I Voted for Obama Website. Perhaps this website can prevent Obama from committing more Holocausts/Genocides.

/sarcasm

Gideon's either very bad at maths or he's deliberately trying to mislead people. The actual figures are in the Unicef report, so there's no need for him to calculate imaginary, incorrect ones.

The under-five mortality rate (2007) is 257 out of every 1,000 kids. This means that the chances of a kid dying before they get to five are one in four. That's not good, actually that's one of the worst in the world.

But is this all because the evil occupiers are deliberately slaughtering kids like the Nazis did?

Well, obviously that's not true because of the massive health and nutrition problems mentioned, though the occupation may have had an effect. So the only way we can figure that out is to go back to the last reliable set of stats pre the occupation.

The ones Unicef gives are for 1990. They show the under-five mortality rate was... 260 out of 1,000 kids. That (for those of you like Gideon who don't think this stuff through) is *worse* than the current figures.

So, probably best not to use these figures as an arguing point. Otherwise people are going to say "Wow, thanks to the US and UK occupation, more than a hundred kids make it to the age of five in Afghanistan each year who would have died 17 years ago..."

As for Gideon's later claims - he's mixed up annual infant mortality with under-five mortality. And this guy claims he's an academic? FFS.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_statistics.html#62

Gideon, I've read up on the past stats of Afghanistan's mortality rates as a whole.

I'll have to disagree with the increase in infant mortality rates being due to NATO and the US.

They were bad before, they're still bad. Nutrition and lack of or access to healthcare facilities are highest listed.

They could be blamed for the lack of development, but there wasn't any even before them.

If the forces left, there's no guarantee the infant mortality rates would improve.

Can the deaths be avoidable? Not unless there's civilian progress. Unfortunately the current setup as such is that there's a civilian government, or puppet government, who don't really care, while the international armies focuses on counter-insurgencies and relationship building rather than civilian construction or other developments.

Apologies are needed, but the sole blame isn't on them, and I doubt that this has some direct link to a Zionist or Islamophobic agenda.

The only thing the current armies can do are to cease air strikes in villages, be more development centric while still providing security. Another option would be to directly interfere in the daily day to day administration of the Afghan government, but that will be highly unlikely.

You're still ignoring the fact that in 1990, when noone was occupying Afghanistan (the Russians had gone, the US had another 11 years or so to turn up) the infant mortality rate was higher than in 2007. You've not explained that.

There's another major stumbling block - you make a lot of assumptions based on Iraq figures. But Iraq ranks about 50th in the Unicef infant mortality rate league (Afghanistan is at number two after Sierra Leone). According to those figures, kids in countries including India and Pakistan would stand a greater chance of living if they *moved* to Iraq.

Basic health and education seems to be a far bigger factor. And the education stats for Afghanistan are appalling - particularly those for young women. I wasn't pro the war - far from it - but the more I see stats the more intervention starts to seem like a good idea...

So what is it Gideon? Were the 90 per cent of the deaths in 1990 "avoidable" too - based on the 90 per cent figure that you've plucked out of thin air? If so, who was causing them?

There is a genuine correlation between maternal education and likelihood of a child dying. Your assumption that countries that escape "western" rule all improved massively only works if there was an improvement in health and education. Under the Taleban, that didn't happen.