Which country is biggest threat to peace?

[Pekka]

If we are too Americanized already, why don't you let us fight for you? Seems kind of stupid to say no for free troops .. Isn't the US the land of immigrants anyway? Bring me your sick and all, plus toss few soldiers.

I mean if I want to, I can easily join to some rogue countries soldier, enemy is already using it. What's wrong with ya'll?

[TCO]

Why don't you move over with Dad?

[Sava]

Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused. Before the sanctions, Iraq was a better place. The sanctions have done little to affect Saddam's resources, and they've done little to get rid of him. Strange to see a doctor defending mass murder . You're probably a Bill Frist type

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused. Before the sanctions, Iraq was a better place. The sanctions have done little to affect Saddam's resources, and they've done little to get rid of him. Strange to see a doctor defending mass murder . You're probably a Bill Frist type

Sava, Why do you and many others of the left say "US imposed sanctions?" It is "UN imposed sanctions," meaning the entire world imposed them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


Sava, Why do you and many others of the left say "US imposed sanctions?" It is "UN imposed sanctions," meaning the entire world imposed them.

Swimming in the sea of naivity again, eh Ned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava

Swimming in the sea of naivity again, eh Ned?

I'm sorry, Sava, it was the UN that got us into the pickle we are in. The resolution it passed in 1990 only authorized the coalition to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. This is a major reason why Bush did not finish the job (in taking Bagdad) and had to work through the UN to disarm Saddam. What they came up with is more UN crap - sanctions - that most liberals said would be effective in the first place in ousting Saddam from Kuwait. It is this liberal, anti-war mindset which is causing all the problems. It was imposed on Bush in order to get UN backing and to form the coalition.

So, sanctions have hurt the Iraqi people and have been ineffective in disarming Saddam. But this was highly predictable from the get go, wasn't it?

No, the US reluctantly went along with sanctions rather than taking out Saddam in '91. The sanctions were ill conceived then and remain ill conceived now.

[Sava]

yeah, anti-war mindset is causing the problems, and not the imperialistic war-drums I wonder if you read your posts before posting them because I'm sure they sound better in your head.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused.

Then you need some more education. While Saddam builds new palaces, his people starve. Yeah, blame it all on the sanctions. Your biases are getting in the way of how your perceive reality.

[Sava]

Funny how before the sanctions, thousands of Iraqi's weren't dying, yet Saddam was still hoarding the resources. It sucks when a little thing like "historical precedence" proves you wrong, eh Ming?

And let's talk about who armed Saddam, shall we? Or do you want to stick your head in the sand for that one, too?!

[Ming]

Uhhh... your comments don't prove me wrong. Yes, Iraq was a better place before Saddam started the war. And since then, he has decided that his palaces are more important than his people... You are the one that is misguided here. And your attempt to shift the blame because Americans helped arm him doesn't change the basic fact that HE is allowing his people to die. Yes, the sanctions have limited what he can do... but it is HIS choice to allow his people to die.

[Ned]

Sava, the anti-war mindset seeks to solve all international problems through sanctions. The problem is that these sanctions have harmed the people of the targeted country while not harming the leadership. So long as the people cannot vote, the suffer and die from the sanctions, while the leaders crassly blame the US for their misery.

The lessons of WWI/WWII are that one should not punish nations but their lawless leaders. Sanctions do not work except in rare cases. What they do is cause hatred and guys like Hitler.

Iraq has again proven that sanctions against dictatorships are useless. We should have taken out Saddam in '91. But the sanction-lovers prevailed in advising Bush and the UN. They are the one's responsible for the continuing mess that is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

[Sava]

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Saddam is bad. My whole point is that the US, and the UN Sanctions are doing more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam. And its grossly hypocritical to ignore this fact.

Ned, your errors are in your generalization of your perception of the "anti-war" mindset.

And what's funny, is that all of you are falling for this whole smoke-and-mirrors routine. Bush is keeping to focus on Iraq because as long as he stands at the podium spouting anti-Saddam rhetoric, the people don't stop to realize that he's a terrible president and turning America (especially the economy) into sh!t...

[Ming]

It is also grossly idiotic to not blame Saddam for his crimes against his own people. Pleople like you who believe his propaganda "that it's all the US's fault that people are dying" is his license to continue allowing his own people to die and suffer. In a way, you are also to blame for the deaths as well, because if people like you didn't believe his crap, he wouldn't have a reason to continue to let his people die for the sake of propaganda.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by GP
Why don't you move over with Dad?

1. We don't get along so well
2. That doesn't give me the green card I'd need
3. I'm over 21 (22), so.. that's about it.



I also agree, Saddam is the problem behind sanctions. I bet sanctions would have gone away if he just came down from power and ended his dictatorship. But he is a dictator, greedy bastard who does not give a damn about his people. He cries 'look at our children, they're dying' .. yep, so what are you going to do about it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Saddam is bad. My whole point is that the US, and the UN Sanctions are doing more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam. And its grossly hypocritical to ignore this fact.

Ned, your errors are in your generalization of your perception of the "anti-war" mindset.

And what's funny, is that all of you are falling for this whole smoke-and-mirrors routine. Bush is keeping to focus on Iraq because as long as he stands at the podium spouting anti-Saddam rhetoric, the people don't stop to realize that he's a terrible president and turning America (especially the economy) into sh!t...

I agree with you, Sava, that the sanctions are not affecting Saddam and are only hurting Iraq. I am not sure though that the sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. I think this is the fault of Saddam who would prefer to fund WoMD than buy food. But the fact that he chooses armaments over food is why 1) the sanctions do not work against dictators; and 2) why sanctions against regimes like Saddam do not harm the intended target, the dictator and his regime, but the people who have no defense against the dictator.

We are somewhat in agreement, Sava, that sanctions against Iraq are wrong.

This leads one to the conclusion, though, that Bush I should have removed Saddam in '91 and that Bush II should do it now - in order to end the sanctions regime an get on with our lives.