There's just no getting through to some people. They're so set in their ways they will not listen to the other side.

I understand people are suffering but Saddam broke the treaty which means we either, take out Saddam or impose the embargo. They still get food for oil, and it's not our fault he's abusing that and starving his people to rearm and keep his elite troops loyal.

To drop the embargo means Saddam wins, but this isn't about being right or wrong. If he wins he puts his WOMD program in full speed. Then see how many people die. Of course it'll all be Jews in Israel so who cares, right?

 

800, your 'history lesson' is not accurate, nor is your analysis.

Just wanted to point this fact out, before people spend their time debunking your statements and ignore the plain-as-day truth that they try to ignore.

 

my "history lesson" is not inaccurate. it is just incomplete and so is my "analysis." i simply didn't feel up to writing out a 25-page term paper on the subject. so, make what you will of my brief statememnts.

cheers!

 

tenorjedi:

Saddam will just keep pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The dead Iraqis are but a weapon for him to use so that people will urge us to drop the sanctions and thereby let him win.

The only acceptable option is to take him out. And that probably will mean war. Best to do so now, before he can get his hands on nuclear weapons.

Failure to take him out will be allowing tens of thousands of innocents to die.

 

Saddam is being fueled by those countries that do not want the US to control oil. Take away the oil from the Middle East and the US would be out of the region in a flash.

 

[blockquote]QueenDorme[hr]Take away the oil from the Middle East and the US would be out of the region in a flash.[hr][/blockquote]

Really? Actually, I think the US is the only country that would still be in that region. You could take away all the oil right this second, but Israel would still be allied with the US. However, every other country would be out of there, maybe. I could see some European countries being closer to Israel if circumstances were different, and that's different, as in, if they didn't have to keep these countries happy to keep the oil flowing.

 

Warsloth was banned? Dang what happened to freedom of speech. Just because he has radical views doesn't mean he should be banned, that's my opinion but oh well, Warsloth you were a good man- good bye.

 

Why do people always see fit to twist my words? I did not say that I support Saddam(in fact I don't). And what's all this about Saddam "winning" if we drop sanctions? I'm talking about economic sanctions, not military sanctions.

The sanctions in place right now has a "dual-use" policy. If it can be put to military use, then it is a "banned product." Can you think of items that don't have military application? Pencils use lead, which can be used to create weapons, therefore it is banned. Other items include: adhesive tape, soccer balls, bags, bicycles, books, calculators, candle sticks, toys, children's clothing, shoelaces, lamps, detergents, dolls, eyeglasses, hairpins, paper clips and medical supplies.

And besides, have the sanctions ever hurt Saddam? So keeping it in place is a must because if we lifted sanctions, it would be a "symbolic victory" for Saddam? It's like what Madeline Albright said a while back, the deaths of half-a-million children is "worth it" to ensure that our ego is in place.

 

Smarter sanctions are needed in the future, that much is clear. The failure of the 'smart sanctions' in the late '90's was a result of Russian and French initiatives, if I'm not mistaken.

As for Albright, she should have never answered that question. No matter what her answer, it would have been a negative hit for US and UN policy. The way the question was worded was misleading and unfair, and should have been ignored on that basis. It was as misleading and unfair as your statement that she said it was worth it for our 'ego', and not for the clear and stated goal of trying to keep weapons of mass destruction and military equipment from Saddam's regime.


He has clearly flouted UN resolutions on this matter, not American ones. Sanctions have failed, whether one blames the US or the Russians or Saddam or a combination; they have not forced Saddam to open his country up to weapons inspectors to remove the weapons we already knew about, in addition to what we still hadn't found and what has been made in the interim.

There is an absolutely clear case to go in militarily, to enforce this.

 

The Allies bear no responsibility whatsoever for the deaths of half a million children in Iraq. Their deaths lie at the door of Saddam Hussain and the Iraqi regime.

The idea that the Allies are somehow to blame is one of the biggest myths in the world. I for one would shed few tears if Hussain and his gang of crooks were to meet with a series of unfortunate accidents, culminating in a coup.

I just don't think there's the general will for an invasion at the moment though.

 

Which is a shame, given the need and moral imperitive. Also, America's footprint and relations with the Middle East has more to do with Iraq than with Israel...resolving this situation needs to be a top priority for US leaders.

 

"As for Albright, she should have never answered that question. No matter what her answer, it would have been a negative hit for US and UN policy. The way the question was worded was misleading and unfair, and should have been ignored on that basis."

Albright was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"
She answered that the "price is worth it." How that question can be "misleading and unfair" is more than I can say. The 1/2 million figure, by the way, is a UNICEF figure from 1995.The death toll today is at least twice as much high.

"It was as misleading and unfair as your statement that she said it was worth it for our 'ego', and not for the clear and stated goal of trying to keep weapons of mass destruction and military equipment from Saddam's regime."

Oh, and has it kept him from acquiring those weapons? Whats this I hear about mobile missile launchers with chemical warheads?

Like I said, we can justify this by pinning the blame all we want, but Iraqi sanctions are specifically attributed to us and we are getting hated for it all over the world. Usama Bin Laden has used it in his justification of targetting American civilians and while Americans can easily brush it off onto Saddam, it is not that easy for the rest of Muslim and Arab worlds to shove it under. As long as we have the attitude of "it's not our problem," Usama Bin Laden will always have several ten thousand people that he can count on.

 

So, because it is al qaeda propaganda, it is legitimate for you to echo the same argument? Even you must realize the faulty logic in that sentiment.

However, since it is al qaeda propaganda, it *is* worth addressing. That much is true.

The Albright statement occurred as you said. The way the question was worded places blame for the deaths implicitly or explicitly at the foot of the United States-led UN sanctions, which may be factually correct but is not morally or philosophically true, or true once one accepts the culpability of Saddam Hussein for his own actions and the effect on his people. The implicit acceptence of 500,000 deaths is why the question was improper and wrong for her to answer.


Have the sanctions worked? No. Saddam saw fit to kill his own people rather than comply, and has been aided in the propaganda war by people who would rather blame the countries trying to affect positive change in the region over those stymying the sanction/weapons inspection regime or, God forbid, Saddam himself.

Then, Saddam threw the UN inspectors out, and gridlock on the UN security council has not allowed the UN to follow up the effort. It is clear that in order to enforce the weapons inspection regime, military force is going to have to be brought to bear onto Iraq.


So, do you wish to reward Saddam for the death of his people by lifting all sanctions and disregarding the UN proposals? In that case, the chemically tipped missiles you threw out as a taunt are his reward, to do with as he sees fit. Sounds great.

The deaths of the people in Iraq is not a cause to blame the US or the UN; their deaths were not presupposed by the sanctions regime, and actions that facillitated their deaths were undertaken by Saddam. Does a bus driver get blamed for deaths when people push small children mercilessly into their path? The failure of the sanctions regime does provide an object lesson for what will and will not work in the future, though, and the UN and US should be mindful of this in the next situation. It would be a shame to copy the same course of action that both didn't work and provide propaganda to those sympathizing with dictators.

 

When I talked about "winning" I was trying to point out that the embargo isn't about pride or being right. We would be damned if the embargo was about ego. It's about not giving someone like Saddam a means to kill inocents. Also his rumored aquiring of weapons shows that money that should have gone for food and supplies is going toward WOMD. If the guy is giving 25K per suicide bomber while his people starve, how can someone for one second saying the blame falls even a mile close to anyone but Saddam.

I agree that a full military intervention is what is needed but certain countries that oppose the sanctions, also oppose military action. They'd just assume drop the whole thing and let Saddam build up an arsenal of Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This makes an attack on Iraq quite difficult politcally.

 

tenorjedi:

Not really. President Bush has been pretty firm in pointing out that we will NOT wait to be attacked before we act.

If we know someone hostile is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and if there is a high likelihood that they will try to use them, we will not wait to see what happens.

 

"So, because it is al qaeda propaganda, it is legitimate for you to echo the same argument? Even you must realize the faulty logic in that sentiment."

The Al-Qaeda organization is made out of people who are perfectly sincere in what they do. Does the fact that 'terrorists' mention a cause of their views automatically ensure that what they mention is not worthy of the slightest consideration? And I've had views on Iraq sanctions well before anyone even knew what Al-Qaeda was.

"The way the question was worded places blame for the deaths implicitly or explicitly at the foot of the United States-led UN sanctions, which may be factually correct but is not morally or philosophically true, or true once one accepts the culpability of Saddam Hussein for his own actions and the effect on his people. The implicit acceptence of 500,000 deaths is why the question was improper and wrong for her to answer. "

Firstly, the figures were stated in a UN investigation as to what effect the sanctions have had. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that just because the deranged lunatic who heads Iraq doesn't-care-about/kills his own people that we are also justified in killing them? Thirdly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the implicit acceptance of 500,000 deaths"? The question was asked in the understood context of sanctions.

"So, do you wish to reward Saddam for the death of his people by lifting all sanctions and disregarding the UN proposals?"

Like I said, I want economic (not military) sanctions lifted.


"If the guy is giving 25K per suicide bomber while his people starve, how can someone for one second saying the blame falls even a mile close to anyone but Saddam."

Why does it appear to me that everyone seems to be saying "If Saddam doesn't help his people, we can kill them."

Making clear my views: I don't support the complete lifting of sanctions. I only support the lifting of sanctions that prevent medicines and food from being given to the Iraqi people. I also want the sanctions that prevent Iraq's civilian infrastructure from being rebuilt lifted. The US deliberately targeted Iraq's water and sewage infrastructure during the Gulf War with the result that the majority of these deaths are caused by impurified water(that would be considered "sewage" in the U.S). The materials to rebuild the water system are on the sanctions list.

 

As I've said repeatedly, the US and UK have made initiatives for exactly what you propose, and have been blocked by Russia and France on the UN security council. Most recently [linkhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1410000/1410110.stm]here.[/link]

That the sanctions have had a certain effect does not in any way answer questions about culpability.

I do not think we are going to agree on the basic moral issues involved at this time.

 

shds:

Sanctions are not the answer in Iraq. The ONLY answer worth discussing is Saddam Hussein's removal from power.

THAT will end the sanctions.

 

[blockquote]
As I've said repeatedly, the US and UK have made initiatives for exactly what you propose, and have been blocked by Russia and France on the UN security council. Most recently [/blockquote]

I'm just curious here: I visited your link and saw no mention of France position on US and UK proposal. Apparently, only Russia opposed it. Do you have more detailed info?

 

I can look. France and China were ready to sign on to the latest proposal in 2001. I think that the French were causing the most trouble in the late 90's, when the inspection regime finally failed and it became clear that sanctions were not solving their goal and providing propaganda.


there is scads of stuff out on the internet as far as news stories. just a quick search found this in the [link=http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/11/28/us/us.3.html]CSM[/link].

"The deep uncertainty over international cooperation on counter-proliferation grows out of differences among the world's most powerful nations over dealing with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's challenge to UNSCOM, the UN inspection group.

Eager to reopen trade deals with Baghdad, France and Russia are seeking to short-circuit UNSCOM to hasten the lifting of UN sanctions on Iraq. Russia's pledge to seek an end to sanctions led to an Oct. 22 resumption of UNSCOM operations after a three-week hiatus triggered by Iraq's expulsion of US experts.

French and Russian advocacy on Iraq's behalf comes despite evidence that Saddam retains an arsenal of illegal weapons seven years after UNSCOM began work in the wake of the Gulf War.

This cache is believed to include 6,000 gallons of anthrax, a deadly toxin, and ingredients to produce as much as 200 tons of the nerve agent VX, enough to kill everyone on earth. Iraq is also suspected of concealing dozens of Scud medium-range missiles."

 

This is from 1997, and not related with the recent US proposal of "smart sanctions". You said that France specifically opposed this proposal. This is what I doubt.

To my knowledge, France's position has been that the initial sanctions had hurt the Iraki people much more than Saddam Hussein, and that keeping them would favor an anti-UN sentiment among the population, thus strengthening Saddam's position in Irak.
Hence the 1997 proposal to end those sanctions.

Opposing US and UK proposal of smart sanctions would not be in agreement with this position, which is why I was surprised by your claim.

I read several other article on the BBC site, looking for this info, but couldn't find it.

 

Why does it appear to me that everyone seems to be saying "If Saddam doesn't help his people, we can kill them."

I believe your line of thinking is your problem. What we are saying is that Saddam has multiple means to help his people (even without letting in inspectors), yet he has not done so. He and Al Queda are using their deaths as a propaganda weapon. They don't actually care about the Iraqi people or the Palestinians; they're just good ways to draw support from the Arab community. No doubt they're winning the propoganda war in the region due in part to the lack of free speech and good information in the region.

We're not killing them. They get food for oil and that should be enough if Saddam actually used it for food. The 25K per person and his aquiring of weapons shows that he has the means to feed people, but would rather develop WOMD and kill people than feed his people. Therefore the blame can only fall on Saddam. I'm in full support of his removal, and I always have been. It's also been my first choice of action rather than sanctions in how to deal with the situation, unfortunatly the UN has always disagreed with me and most americans. I most definetly would like to drop sanctions if there was a more effective way to deal with the situation (which his removal would do) but dropping economic sanctions would only give Saddam more money to buy arms on the black market and continue his efforts for WOMD without pressure from the international community.

 

I don't know the official French position on 'smart sanctions', and was lumping their roadblocking on the weapons inspection and sanctions regime in general in with the Russians on the matter. I do not know the full history, just the broad strokes, so I'm sorry if something I said is incorrect if literally interpreted.



"To my knowledge, France's position has been that the initial sanctions had hurt the Iraki people much more than Saddam Hussein, and that keeping them would favor an anti-UN sentiment among the population, thus strengthening Saddam's position in Irak."

However, I do know that this is self-serving junk. It is quite clear that the French opposition to the current sanctions regime has more to do with oil and trade and military sales than to do with humanitarian reasons. Ditto the Russians.

 

[blockquote]However, I do know that this is self-serving junk. It is quite clear that the French opposition to the current sanctions regime has more to do with oil and trade and military sales than to do with humanitarian reasons. Ditto the Russians.[/blockquote]

I have a hard time reconciling those two sentences of yours:

"I don't know the official French position on 'smart sanctions'"
and:
"French opposition to the current sanctions regime"

So you don't know anything about the official position, but you're still convinced that France opposed the "smart sanctions" proposal?

In a nutshell, you say "I don't know the French position on this subject, but it is quite clear that this decision I have never heard of is self_serving junk"?

Are you that biased, or did I get something wrong?

P.S: the Russians speak for themselves, not for any other country. Besides, they did not include France, as far as I know: "seriously worried that the so-called smart sanctions may negatively affect the legitimate economic interests of many countries, including Russia".

 

I agree totally. Lets see, has it seemed odd to anyone that the War on Terror has seemed to turn into a War on Oil? The president that was placed in Afghanistan was a former United States executive in the Oil buisness. OH MY GOD!! That is so coinsidental. Naturally the 9/11 attacks were very sad, but The United States has pushed the line too far. They shouldn't have attacked the Taliban. That is Afghanistan's government. The United States should mind their own damned buisness. Getting rid of the terrorist group known as Alqueda? That is what they should have done, if they were only going to fight "Terrorism". Also, I think that it is so hypocritical that they fight terrorism with terrorism. Because a very well known definition of Terrorism consists of cooercing, pursuading, or inflicting terror upon a government in order to gain personal, or organizational benefit. The United States is in direct violation of terrorism. I can not stand that people are so for getting rid of a way of life. It pisses me off. Naturally I dissagree with the way that the Taliban treated women, but that is THEIR culture, so we should have left it at that. George W. Bush is simply siezing an opportunity to help his rich friends become richer in the oil buisness. And all from a terroristic act. Hypocracy, it is so easily masked.

And many people would say that the United States has good intentions. Well the worst things in history have been done with the best intentions. Take for instance, Hitler. He had an intention to bring Germany out of a depression. He did it. But dispite his good intentions, he brought to pass a very dark, and sad period in history. He who fails to learn from the past is doomed to repeat it.