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

[-towd_]

akdejavu man i remember that most of the scary military  irac had as u.s. supplied , i see your argument but our government is basicaly evil they are right . leave the buggers alone . and let europe go fight um next time.

[blur]

 

Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Hmm...let's see...who manufactures the T-72 tank, the MIG-27, and the Hind-D helicopter? Twist it another way, that one's not working.

Hmmm, looks like you need a hint.
 http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Ice:
We are so concerned about the minority, but do not focus on the majority. And we give Saddam a stick to beat us with everytime we refuse (or bureacratically 'delay') a shipment of medical aid to them.

Dowding,

Without getting accusatory, your viewpoints are just as myopic as anyone elses here.  The people of Iraq are suffering because of what their leader has done to them indirectly by his aggressions to neighboring countries.  

History has shown that Saddam will ruthlessly attack those that he feels weaker than him if there is something to gain.  The current shackles imposed on his country by the UN were put in place to restrict the damage he could do to his neighbors through acts of aggression.  

The original idea behind these sanctions was that starving masses would clamor for a change in leadership just like they had in Yugoslavia recently and overthrow the current leader.  Saddams ironfisted grip on his peoples however have quelled any uprisings with even more bloodshed among his own people.  To summarize, the sanctions didnt have the hoped for result when they first were issued.

My only fear is that if sanctions were completely removed from Saddam and he were allowed to resume his military buildup, how many Iranians or Syrians or Kuwaitis or Saudis will be killed when he again sees an opening for attack?  Are the lives of his starving masses more important than those of his neighbors?

-Ding

[TheWobble]

 

The people of Iraq are suffering because of what their leader has done to them indirectly by his aggressions to neighboring countries.

If there is no aggression being put towards him he makes something up, to steal more money which he spends on himself.

 
 

The original idea behind these sanctions was that starving masses would clamor for a change in leadership just like they had in Yugoslavia recently and overthrow the current leader. Saddams ironfisted grip on his peoples however have quelled any uprisings with even more bloodshed among his own people. To summarize, the sanctions didnt have the hoped for result when they first were issued

So we should reward him for this by lifting the sanctions??

I agree the sanctions are not the way to go, I think we should wipe him off the face of the earth, but of coure politics prohibit that for many reasons, but letting him go just becasue he has BEATEN the people into the ground with TERROR and FEAR certinly is not the way to go, hell if the president here said in public for all to hear that if you spoke against him you and your family would be murdered, i sure as hell wouldent say much, and thats the deal over there pretty much...and we should reward him for it???


 

My only fear is that if sanctions were completely removed from Saddam and he were allowed to resume his military buildup, how many Iranians or Syrians or Kuwaitis or Saudis will be killed when he again sees an opening for attack? Are the lives of his starving masses more important than those of his neighbors?

That pretty sums it up doesent it, there really isnt no right answer, hence the situation.

I dont believe in the sanctions, but we cant let him go either, stuck between a rock and a DICK-tater as they would say.  If we lifted the sanctions on him all it would say to him and the rest of the world is that if you murder and torment your own people enough that you can hold them as hostages if you ever get into trouble.  NOT a good message to send..kinda like the US's policy of not negotiating with terrorists, if we caved in on one the rest would think that they cold get away with it.

This whole is a situation is a real pickle to be in, but things would be much worse off it we and the UN just let this wacko roam free and to do as his twisted mind pleases with no fear of reprisal.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by TheWobble:
..kinda like the US's policy of not negotiating with terrorists, if we caved in on one the rest would think that they cold get away with it.

Would you agree with this policy if you were one of the hostages?  I think not.

Sanctions ARENT being removed...they are being lessened because the original goals (ousting of Saddam from power) werent attained and there is no indication that by maintaining the current level of sanctions this will ever occur.

Wobble, from your writing style I have a hard time understanding if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. :/

-Ding

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by blur:
Hmmm, looks like you need a hint.
 http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/mideast/gulf.html

Oh, I was there, I don't need any hints. I know what you're insinuating, and I'm not buying it. The Soviets were the major supporters of Iraq. Those weren't Abrams tanks we were sploding. You can twist anything to your agenda, but the truth is still there. I'm not saying we didn't contribute, but we were hardly the main supplier.

[StSanta]

Heh nice link blur

Raub, agreed on that point, but the US still supported them financially and to a quite limited extent military.

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. That's my shot at it anyhow; the US haven't shyed away from assassination attempts of leadres of sovregein nations before.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!

[Toad]

Nope, Santa. He isn't dead because we missed him three times while we were "not hunting him" during the Gulf War.  

We got really, really close one time though.  

[StSanta]

Awww, you guys can do better than that.

<recalls Castro assassination attempts>

Hm.

You're right  .

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!

[Voss]

We should never have gotten involved in this, unless we were determined to oust this salamander. Playing with him is only getting people killed. I say we egg him on his next birthday. No nukes required.
  It would have been nice if the Republicans could pass off a real John Wayne President just once. None of these Bush boys have got it, I don't think. But, the only brains we'll see in the White House are the greasy lawyer types, or Republicans too young to have any spine. I am glad, though, that at least we have a Republican President, and not that liberal roadkill anymore. I hope they sanitize the mansion.
  Regardless, of how this looks from an International stand, we have a military capable of shuting down a place like Iraq. We can work in their neighborhood and work without loss of life. We have proven this. Why then didn't we end this thing?
  Saddam should be dead today. This is stupid.
  Or, maybe someone with more brains, and behind the scene, knows that Saddam is better then the alternative. Could be we are all being played for saps. I'd like to see him gone, though. Dead. Quit tying up CNN with desert news. I don't care how many boogers Hussein played with today.

[TheWobble]

 

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

THats why he isnt dead,

Between the US Navy Seals and the British SAS, I imagine he could have been plugged at the drop of a hat if it had been deemed a good idea, but it wasnt and unfortunatly, still isnt.

[pzvg]

Actually, If we wanted Sadsack "removed" I think we wouldn't even have to get involved, just let Israel know that we wouldn't mind.
As for who supports who, man, that's rich coming from people who already cut deals with devils, face it, there ain't an easy answer, there is no victory without bloodshed, and "why can't we all get along?"
is as invalid now as it was when Thog first bashed Ugh over the head with the "Hefty Stick" (Tm)
The West requires oil, in fact would disintegrate without it, we have to broker deals and deals within deals, in order to obtain what we need while remaining a democracy commited to world peace, the only way for the West to ensure the flow of oil without compremising our national integrity and "dealing with devils" is to revert to good old fashioned conquest, any of you fancy having a go at ruling the world?
Didn't think so.

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[Dowding]

Ding - I've never said I wanted sanctions completely removed. Just the humanitarian ones and the 'de facto embargo by bureacracy'.

They are to put it bluntly, pushing the boundaries of legality and I'm glad the British and US governments are reviewing them.

Wobble - go back and read the quotes I've posted (the ones dealing with Madeline Albright).

They explicitly state that the 'oil for food' programme does NOT satisfy the humanitarian requirements of the Iraqi people.

So basically, the Iraqi nation is not been given enough money to obtain food, even BEFORE Saddam steals it. So the argument that we shouldn't give aid because Hussein will just divert the funds is bogus.

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:


Wobble - go back and read the quotes I've posted (the ones dealing with Madeline Albright).

They explicitly state that the 'oil for food' programme does NOT satisfy the humanitarian requirements of the Iraqi people.

Dowding, go back and read the excerpt I posted from the State Dept. Here, I'll save you some work.

 

the report on child mortality rates in Iraq "indicates that the rates are declining in the autonomous northern regions, which is under the same sanctions regime as the rest of Iraq but where oil-for-food        delivery is managed by the United Nations. 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." Under Resolution 986 and its successors, 13 per cent of the total                        revenue from oil sales                        is allocated to humanitarian goods for the north. The rest of the country                        receives 53 per cent                        of total revenues for humanitarian imports. The UN is in charge of                        administering the program in                        the north in cooperation with the local Kurdish authorities, although the                        bulk purchases of food                        and medicine for the whole country are made by the Iraqi government                        and transported to the                        north.

Always another side to the story, isn't there ?

[Dowding]

Not really the other side to the story. More like carefully ignoring the key issues.  

The quotes I posted explained how the total funds available for the purchase of medical supplies/food do not satisfy the need of the Iraqi people. This is even before the goods are distributed inside Iraq (your state department report).

Here's a quote that sumarises the problem better than I can:

". A commonly cited second novus actus argument in favour of the sanctions runs that fewer people would starve if Hussein spent all the available funds on food and medicine instead of squandering it on luxuries for his elite.Leaving to one side both the fact that the total revenue from the programme is admitted by the UN to be inadequate and the question of how it is supposed that Hussein could spend oil-for-food money on luxuries when it is not under his control (it is released from escrow by the UN only against approved humanitarian contracts), this is again an argument without foundation. The failure of a third party to intervene to mitigate the effects of a criminal act can never excuse the act."


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