Originally posted by Eagler:
As a result of their own actions against Kuwait. They haven't seen anything yet if it is proven they are behind this attack, which I feel at some level they are..
But what is the difference between 500,000 Iraqi children and 20,000 americans? What makes one right and the other wrong? Are those children more guilty than the victims in the terrorist attack?
I think we are being blinded by numbers and simplistic truths. The number 500,000 doesn't mean anything to us anymore. We want to think that 'it's their own fault' because the option is too painful.
Frankly I cannot belive that there are still people defending the sanctions and continuos bombings of Iraq. Saddam Hussein might be a criminal and dictator, but this doesn't allow for the violation of international law.
Washington Post: Twisted Policy on IraqIt will only achieve even greater hatred against the west, and soon the path to agreement and unity between west and middle-east will be closed for the forseeable future.
Noam Chomsky (Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology):
"I agree that Saddam Hussein is a great danger to everyone within his reach, just as he was in the 1980s, when his worst crimes were committed. It is, however, elementary logic that that cannot be the reason why the U.S. and Britain are opposing him. His war crimes were committed with the strong support of the United States and Britain, even after the invasion of Kuwait. Furthermore, the United States turned immediately to direct support for Saddam Hussein in March 1991, when he suppressed an uprising in the South that might have overthrown his rule.
As for his weapons of mass destruction, although that threat is also real, Iraq is by no means the only country with such weapons. You do not have to go very far from Iraq in either direction to find other examples of such countries, and the major powers are, of course, the worst threat in this respect. But even if we simply focus on Iraq, the bombing cannot have anything to do with limiting weapons of mass destruction, because the fact is that the bombing will very likely enhance those programmes. The only restriction that has existed - and it has been an effective restriction - is the regular inspection. The nuclear weapons programme has apparently been reduced to nothing or very little because of the inspections. UNSCOM inspectors have undoubtedly been impeded, but have nevertheless severely limited Iraq's weapons development capacity and have destroyed plenty of weapons. It is generally assumed, by the U.S. as well, that UNSCOM's efforts will either be terminated or marginalised very much as a result of the bombing. So that cannot be the reason for the bombing.
Although I agree that Saddam Hussein remains a serious threat to peace, there happens to be a way to deal with that question, one that has been established under international law. That procedure is the foundation of international law and international order and is also the supreme law of the land in the United States. If a country, say the United States, feels that a threat is posed to peace, it is to approach the Security Council, which has the sole authority to react to that threat. The Security Council is required to pursue all peaceful means to deal with the threat to peace, and if it determines that all such means have failed, it may then specifically authorise the use of force. Nothing else is permitted under international law, except with regard to the question, here irrelevant, of self-defence."
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
