"Britain and the United States are carrying out a review of sanctions against Iraq. "

[Eagler]

Dowding

Don't worry, it isn't the dead kids in Iraq that'll change our policies towards that country, it's both of our economies in need of cheaper fuel prices that will force us to deal with Saddam the moron.

Eagler

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
The reason Saddam ain't dead yet is because the US know that it's easier to deal with a relatively secular leader of the minority than religious fanatics as seen in Iran.

Interesting thought but a far shot from the truth.  During the Gulf War there were a number of attempts on his life but failed for one reason or another.  Once the war was ended, any attempt on his life would be contrued assasination in peacetime (murder).  Although the CIA at one time were open to foreign despot assasination, they became a bit more reserved in the 70s and 80s and shunned this behavior.

As much as you all would love to see the US become a bunch of assasins, we do have a modicum of restraint  

-Ding

[Baddawg]

.squelch Saddam

[Cabby]

Gotta repeat myself again it seems.  Dowding, you are a Lib-moron.  

And where does it say we HAVE to GIVE Iraq food????  AFAIC, if Iraqi's are starving that's their problem.  Maybe if the population wasn't made up of sniveling cowards they would revolt and kill Saddam, and all his thugs along with him.

A nation gets the government it deserves.

Cabby

[LJK Raubvogel]

Ok Dowding, one more time nice and bold for ya  

"In contrast, the report shows that Iraqi
failure to deliver humanitarian aid in south and central Iraq has led to a                        doubling of the child mortality rate."

How is it that with only 13% of the total funds, the infant mortality rate in the UN controlled north is falling, yet in the Iraqi controlled south with 53% of the funds it is rising? Doesn't something seem odd about that? And this report is pretty specific. I mean "Iraqi failure to deliver aid has led to a doubling of the mortality rate" is pretty clearly defined. Two different sources, two different stories. Which one is correct? Neither of us knows for sure, I can guarantee that.

[Dowding]

Cabby - your posts are absolutely hilarious. I actually look forward to them. You are clearly the most angry, bitter and above all joyless person I've encountered on this BB. Every post you make is dripping with a vitriol which is either a wind-up or the tragic product of deep-seated insecurity crossed with a crippling desire to one day have your own opinion.

If you want to contribute like an adult, instead of the oafish characture of a goose-stepping right-wing nutter that you seem to be fond of, then I'll gladly answer any of your points. Until that distant day, I'll continue to enjoy your performance for what it is.

And just for you: Privet, Comrade!

Raubvogel - the point about conflicting sources is a good one. But not relevant here, pal.   I concede that Saddam is abusing the distribution of aid from the 'oil for food' scheme - but the over-riding is issue is that there is not enough aid in the first place, even before Saddam diverts/steals it.

Of course Saddam is acting like a complete bastard, but I believe we are making the situation far worse.

But anyway, good discussion. I didn't expect anyone to really agree with me. Cheers and <S>.  

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-21-2001).]