Now that war is assured...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Japher

Why are you trying to blame the US for this? Damned if you do, damned if you don't... I guess.

We are warmnongers, right? I really don't think it was our decision, or Bagdad would no be called Disney Sand.

I blame the UN.

Where in your quote of me am I blaming the US?

Sorry, lost me on that...

Perhaps you are mistaking my points with the fact that the US was the major power in the Gulf War?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ming
Oh... so the alternative was to allow him to have even more money... which by your own comments would have only meant that he had more money to spend on palaces and his army

My alternative would be to have kicked him out when we had the chance!

Failing that, I would have kept him on the rack and not given him any leeway. Sanction such as an arms embargo would be fine, but sanctions on certain medicines because they could be used for WMD are not.

We let up the pressure, because we thought that sanctions would do their work for us - although it still hasn't worked on Cuba yet...

As you admit, he doesn't care about his own people... so the sanctions have only really limited the number of new palaces and his army

That is BS as your smilie proves...

All sanctions have done, is strengthen Saddam's hand and to provide another weapon for Saddam's arsenal - why gas your enemies when you can starve them for free!?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MikeH


Oh of course, the sanctions are only useful as a way to encourage the people of Iraq to rebel against Saddam. I appreciate that.

Sanctions are killing people in Iraq because Saddam is in power. It's the direct combination of Saddam and Sanctions. You can't say one or the other is to blame, it's the combination.

To me, you're amazing. Simply amazing.

Why should the USA give anything to a Hussein-led Iraq, OR North Korea ?
It's not mandated that the U.S. give anything, to anybody. It's a choice we make, to try and help.
To give to Hussein would be a glaring case of dumbass.

WTF is Canada doing to help anyone, besides themselves?

[Spiffor]

To answer the initial question :

I've seen one poster here on 'Poly falling in the category decribed in the head post.
He' supposed to be a DL, but I'm horrified such people even exist

[Sava]

Sanctions prevent everyone from trading with Iraq... Slowwy, not just the US.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


To me, you're amazing. Simply amazing.

Why should the USA give anything to a Hussein-led Iraq, OR North Korea ?
It's not mandated that the U.S. give anything, to anybody. It's a choice we make, to try and help.
To give to Hussein would be a glaring case of dumbass.

WTF is Canada doing to help anyone, besides themselves?

I thought I was supporting the position that sanctions aren't working so we need to do something else about Iraq. Surely the logical conclusion from that is that the only way to make Iraq better for the Iraqis is to get Saddam out.

[MikeH]

And what's Canada got to do with anything? I'm not Canadian.

[SlowwHand]

What's your point, Sava ?

[Ming]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
My alternative would be to have kicked him out when we had the chance!

On that we can agree... Unfortunately, Bush was trying to stay within the guidelines dictated by the UN at the time. He didn't have a world mandate to throw him out of office. He did the best he could within those constraints... it failed.

Failing that, I would have kept him on the rack and not given him any leeway. Sanction such as an arms embargo would be fine, but sanctions on certain medicines because they could be used for WMD are not.

I disagree... As people have pointed out, he doesn't care about his people... so who is to say that the medicines would ever have ended up in the hands of the people? Simple facts would imply that they never would have.

We let up the pressure, because we thought that sanctions would do their work for us - although it still hasn't worked on Cuba yet...

Yeah... a mistake. But Bush really had no choice. It wasn't part of the UN mandate, so he tried to play within the rules.

That is BS as your smilie proves...

Partially... but there is still a lot of truth in the comment.

All sanctions have done, is strengthen Saddam's hand and to provide another weapon for Saddam's arsenal - why gas your enemies when you can starve them for free!?

I agree... but to totally blame the US for ALL the deaths is just a joke. If one is going to be so black and white about it, and just blame one party, Sadam deserves to be the bad guy here. He is the more responsible one here.

But since it isn't black and white, both sides deserve some blame. The US for sticking to a game plan that wasn't working (and after 12 years, have finally decided on a different course of action) And Sadam for intentionally letting his people die and starve when he could have done something about it

[Sava]

But Ming, before the sanctions, the Iraqi people weren't as bad off. 60 minutes did a great report on this about 4 months ago.

[Ming]

Before Sadam went to war, the people weren't as bad off either Many of the problems for the people caused by the sanctions are due to their leader, not the sanctions

[Sava]

As Mike put it... both are to blame. But the sanctions are because of the leader. I would hope that the UN would recognize that the sanctions aren't really doing anything to affect Saddam, it's the people that are suffering.

So Ming, if sanctions aren't working, why have them?

[Ming]

Sava... you should read my earlier posts...

[Dis]

why is this thread not closed, but lincoln's thread was?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GePap
I say, let this thread be toast: it is amazing, the level of hatred and mistrust so many of the pro-war side have for the anti-war side (and vice versa) that two different posters would come out and say :"hey look they want iraqis to die so they can hate us more".

The tone of this thread was set by the thread's author. Others just ran with it from there.

Gatekeeper