Anglo-American "democratic imperialism" and 0.9 billion infant deaths

[bemildred]

There is a new world order that is dominated by one superpower, the US. This US hegemony is backed by its Anglo-Celtic cousins, Australia and the UK. It is vitally important for the world to consider the human cost of this régime.

The Anglo-American Coalition commenced war against Iraq in 1991, conquered Afghanistan in 2001 and finally occupied all of Iraq in 2003. The human cost has been horrendous - the “excess mortality” (avoidable mortality) in Iraq has been estimated from UN data to be 1.5 million since 1991 and about 0.3 million since the US invasion in 2003, these estimates being consonant with estimates of under-5 infant mortality there totalling 1.2 million since 1991 and about 0.2 million since the final invasion. The “excess mortality” and under-5 infant mortality in Afghanistan have been 1.2 million and 0.9 million, respectively, since the invasion in 2001.

The obscenity of such impositions by fabulously wealthy countries on wretchedly poor, fragile countries is illustrated powerfully by the following UNICEF statistics: in 2001 the under-5 infant mortality was 1000 in Australia (population 20 million), 109,000 in Iraq (population 24 million) and 277,000 in Afghanistan (population 22 million). In 2002 these statistics were 1000, 108,000 and 283,000, respectively.

What more can the world expect from this Anglo-American Coalition that is evidently picking up from where the brutal British Empire left off? A good guide can be obtained from an analysis of post-1950 under-5 infant mortality that is made possible by detailed statistics publicly available from the UN and UNICEF. These statistics provide a “smoking gun” for an immense crime that has been committed over the last half century - the largely avoidable death of about 0.9 billion infants throughout the world. This effective mass murder of innocents has gone unreported by Anglo-American-dominated world media.

MediaMonitors(much more)

[Warpy]

1. Passive deaths are seen as an "oh well, too bad."

Infanticide is the only alterntaive to abortion in countries cursed by war and extreme poverty. The Bush gang turn a blind eye to this very uncomfortable fact, that Bush's stands against birth control and information regarding abortion are only increasing the incidence of the after the fact birth control of infanticide.

The only conclusion a rational person can come to is that punishing women is the only aim of their extreme piety. They certainly don't care about born children, only gestating fetuses that they use to punish women for sex.

They are bizarre and they are sick. Karma will be a bitch when it comes around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Their thesis is fairly crude

for instance, their example of a Muslim country that has had a relatively small infant mortality, Malaysia, is an ex-British colony, the same as nearby South Asia. Yet there's a huge difference in the stats.

[bemildred]

3. Yes.

But painting with a broad brush is such a popular activity.

[fedsron2us]

4. Infant mortality is the shame of the world

and war in defence of an unjust economic order is one of its major causes. Unfortunately, this article does little to advance a strong case by its wilful abuse of statistics. Using comparisons of infant death rates to general mortality rates between nations with hugely different age profiles proves nothing. Countries where a greater percentage of the population are young children will nearly always have higher infant mortality rates in relation to the general population than those where the bulk of the population are older. The figures also constructed in such a way that the very low infant death rate in Japan is subsumed in the much higher childhood mortality rates in the rest of East Asia. The facts are being twisted to support the argument. This is shameful because the thesis is sound enough without having to use these dubious methods.