Saddam is Hitler, we're told. We must learn from our past mistakes. The silence of European leaders preceding WWII allowed Hitler to move un-checked. If we had only heeded Churchill's early warnings.... The leaders of Europe weren't the only people keeping quiet though as the Nazis extended their power over the continent and slaughtered 6 million Jews. Many well-meaning German citizens kept quiet too. These people weren't evil killers...they simply had pride in their country, and put their trust in their nation's leaders. Our embargo of Iraq has killed anywhere between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Iraqis. During the Gulf War, the US deliberately bombed and destroyed water and sewage treatment plants (check the official government website: www.gulflink.osd.mil). The subsequent embargo then prevented the shipment of needed medicines, water purifiers, infant milk formula, food and other supplies. If this doesn't fall under the definition of genocide, I don't know what does. You might feel comfortable putting your faith in our country's leaders and "doing something" about "terrorism" in this manner. I, however, can't sit by idly as a silent accomplice to genocide. I'm not going to follow the same mistakes that several well-intentioned Germans made in WWII.
That's high comedy. You make is sound as if poor Iraq were under such hard conditions without any reason. First, they're UN sanctions. Secondly, if Iraq doesn't like them, they could - I don't know - comply with the terms of the sanctions. But they're not. Genocide? Hardly. EDIT: I also like the arbirtary number of Iraqis (or Iraqi children, depending on who's doing the talking) that have supposedly been killed. It's 1.5 million now, is it? Cause it seems like it was stuck at 500,000 for a couple of years. It's like watching the sign change at McDonald's!
This is complete B.S. if you believe the word of any of our Presidents: May 20, 1991 President George Bush: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." November 14, 1997 President Clinton, [During a standoff on weapons inspectors] "What he [Hussein] says his objective is, is to relieve the people of Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions. What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts." If you don't take our Presidents' words for it, how about the UN officials in charge of the sanctions program: Denis Halliday, Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and creator of the oil for food program and 34-year veteran of the UN. Halliday's assessment of the sanctions in Iraq: "I of course found out very quickly that it does not work – it wasn't designed to work; it's not funded to work; it's strangled by the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council – and in a matter of six weeks I was already trying to get the Security Council to assist me, but I got no support whatsoever…I found this was incompatible with my past, incompatible with my feelings about the United Nations, and incompatible with the very United Nations Charter itself and human rights themselves. There was no way I was going to be associated with this program and manage this ghastly thing in Iraq, it was not a possibility for me." "Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this program for years – it's a deliberate ploy…That's why I've been using the word 'genocide' because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq.” Hans von Sponeck, Denis Halliday's successor as head of the "oil for food" program, also resigned in protest. Upon his resignation, von Sponeck stated, "I'm not at all alone in my view that we have reached a point where it is no longer acceptable that we are keeping our mouths shut...How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" Von Sponeck had worked in the UN for 20 years. Dr. Hans Blix, who's currently in charge of inspections: "I can go in there 24 hours a day for ten years and I will never be able to say that there isn’t a half a pound of chemical left behind" I didn't even quote Ritter, since you arbitrarily dismiss anything he says. Take your pick. At what point does the loss of life become acceptable to you? May 12, 1996 On "60 Minutes," Lesley Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died (from Iraqi sanctions). I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?" Albright responds: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Nice work, there. If you're going to call what I write complete B.S., at least refute what you call B.S. At no point in your post do you make the case that they are not UN sanctions that are in place. Strike one. And then you quote Halliday, who believes that the "Oil For Food" program doesn't work. And that has to do with what? Strike two. And then you make no effort, other than a question from - ahem - Lesley Stahl, to validate the number of Iraqis supposedly killed by sanctions. Strike three.
I agree. Fulham, you simply can't read those presidential quotes without understanding that if Iraq was complying, and moving towards a less antagonistic relationship with us and its neighbors, that we would think about lifting the sanctions. And yes, we have a right to ask them to do a little jig as well as comply. They did shoot scuds at Israel. They did invade Kuwait. They are bad guys.
What's b.s. is your assumption that "all Saddam has to do is to comply with the sanctions." Clinton and Bush have said that sanctions would never be lifted as long as Hussein was in power. And while I fully realize that they're UN sanctions, surely you realize that the US would withold dues/veto any move to remove the sanctions. The Albright quote was just to point out two things: A) the 500K number has been around since at least 96. B) point out how cold and vindictive the US policy is.
Maybe because Clinton and Bush both know that Saddam will NEVER comply with the sanctions while his heart is still beating?
We'll never know, will we? Because he won't comply. I think they know that, too. Hell, Powell floated the idea of lifting the sanctions in spring 2001, so it's not as if it hasn't been discussed.
So isn't there a way we can punish Saddam and his government without killing innocent Iraqi civilians, and then a some point will lead to the Iraqi people hating the US (more then they already do), thus creating more people that want to blow the US to pieces?
Speaking of sanctions, why do we still have a trade embargo against Cuba? They haven't done anything bad against the US since the USSR collapsed. Hopefully Castro will die sooner, rather than later so the embargo will be lifted and Cuba will become a vacation spot for americans again.
He he, nice one. I'd have thought that - short of breaking into the UN HQ in the dark of night and making off with the petty cash till - the US couldn't withhold any more dues from the UN than it already does. Oh well, you live and learn...
The same people who are against sanctions now are the ones who in 91 opposed war and said that we should let the sanctions have more time. The problem with Sanctions are they don't work against someone who can not be replaced and doesn't give a damn about his own people.
We're hardly starving Iraqi children, Saddam has plenty of money, why the ************ is it our fault that he spends it not only on his military but also on building palaces and other lavish displays of wealth (he is known to buy thousand-dollar Cuban cigars, take one puff, and throw them away)?? Unless we're controlling how Saddam spends the money that he does have, this ain't our fault. Alex
They work very well (even if we can't enforce them) against: 1) a country which is not actively attacking its neighbors. check 2) against a country whose neighbors are adamantly against attacking it. check 3) against a country which can be quickly destroyed in the event it does attack a neighbor. check 4) against a country which, if attacked, will possibly lead to fanatical attacks by other, unidentified terrorists against the attacking nation. check 5) against a country which, if destabled, could create en even more dangerous power vacuum in the region. check 6) against a country which, if destabled, could produce leaders who will be at odds with their neighbors based on religious (sunni) and ethnic (kurdish) traits. check I am not saying who is right or who is wrong. Anyone who heard the quotes from that Arab league should come away with two facts: 1) they are all a-holes over there, every blessed country, and 2) they don't support an attack. Case closed. We need to get over it. We need to put our efforts into negotiation, better relations with the rest of the Arabs who, while being a-holes, are probably not certifiably insane, and increase our antiterrorism and intelligence efforts. I supported the Gulf War. But we had relatively whole hearted support. Now we don't. That should tell us something. Bush needs to stop trying to promote a war and start promoting better understanding with the arabs and our relationship with Israel. He is XXXXing up our relationship with European allies.
Ground war Nevermind..oman's pretty much covered it and I'm not sure that I would prefer war over the current sanctions, although its pretty much a lose-lose situation. GW may be in a tough positon here, but doesn't make any sense why he would be doing so much talking about war as it's just pissing everyone off.