MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You consider the Iran/Iraq war as 'things were going fine'? You think the invasion of Kuwait was "things were going fine'?Hooo boy.
Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
You consider the Iran/Iraq war as 'things were going fine'? You think the invasion of Kuwait was "things were going fine'?Hooo boy.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Remind me again which side the US supported in the Iran-Iraq war.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Iraq of course, just like we supported Soviet Russia in WWII.
Merkinball
Deity
Do you have anything to substantiate this?
Malnutrition contributed to high mortality rates in Iraq during Saddam's rule. The food aid for Iraq has continued to supply the public distribution system and has allowed the majority of Iraqis access to food rations. On July 15, the World Food Program reported that nearly 1.5 million metric tons of food, or more than the three months supply required to keep the distribution system operating, have been dispatched to Iraq. An additional 2.2 million metric tons of food will arrive by the end of October. These steps will contribute to reversing malnutrition.
To date, 22.3 million doses of measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and polio vaccines have been provided, enough to vaccinate 4.2 million children.
Healthcare: Iraqi hospitals are up and running, and healthcare, previously available only for Ba'athist elite, is now available to all Iraqis. Drugs are being supplied to hospitals and clinics, and medical worker salaries are being paid regularly, ensuring employees attend work. Vaccinations are available across the country, and anti-malarial spraying will take place this autumn.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part3.html
http://www.aina.org/news/20051114120606.htm
http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/recon011006.html
Yes, and the US-UK sanctions regime killed an estimated 500,000 until we invaded, after which...i lost count of how many tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead.
Perhaps if the United States was more interested in healthcare, it wouldn't have imposed the sanctions that would do nothing to Saddam (and indeed actually help him keep power), and yet kill many thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Perhaps if the US was interested in democracy, it would stop propping up dictators like Saddam in the 80's and the Iranian Shah before him.
Iraq used to have a secular constitution with French style civil rights.
But now, the new constitution "has deeper Islamic underpinnings", in the words of a noted intellectual. The Bush regime has been waging a war on the workers of a defenseless target rent apart by strife from the faulty British country scheme organized in 1932 when Iraq got independence.
We don't care about healthcare or humanitarianism or democracy or whatever. The US was a vehement supporter of Saddam in 1988, when he gassed the Kurds at Halabjah.
We are in Iraq for oil profits, and are spilling proletarian blood for it.
Over half a century of Middle-Eastern dealings has decided this. 1+1 will never equal 2.1.
More in a later post
A rhetorical question:
Would we be in Iraq right now if its chief exports were carrots and pickles rather than petroleum?
Perhaps if the United States was more interested in healthcare, it wouldn't have imposed the sanctions that would do nothing to Saddam (and indeed actually help him keep power), and yet kill many thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Perhaps if the US was interested in democracy, it would stop propping up dictators like Saddam in the 80's and the Iranian Shah before him.
Iraq used to have a secular constitution with French style civil rights.
But now, the new constitution "has deeper Islamic underpinnings", in the words of a noted intellectual. The Bush regime has been waging a war on the workers of a defenseless target rent apart by strife from the faulty British country scheme organized in 1932 when Iraq got independence.
We don't care about healthcare or humanitarianism or democracy or whatever. The US was a vehement supporter of Saddam in 1988, when he gassed the Kurds at Halabjah.
We are in Iraq for oil profits, and are spilling proletarian blood for it.
Over half a century of Middle-Eastern dealings has decided this. 1+1 will never equal 2.1.
More in a later post
A rhetorical question:
Would we be in Iraq right now if its chief exports were carrots and pickles rather than petroleum?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Correct me if I am wrong, but werent those UN sanctions? Why, I do believe they were!
Is that the same UN that sanctions Israel? Why, I do believe it is.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Errr. The USA had nothing to do with Saddam coming to power in Iraq.
As for the Shah, he was the heir to his father before him, and was also seen as a pro-west influence in the region (which he was for many, many years). His father was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, because the former Shah has axis ties from WW II. It was a huge foreign policy mistake for President Carter to not support the Shah of Iran. If he had, perhaps the fire of islamic extremism wouldnt be burning so bright today and at the very least americans may have not been kidnapped and held by Iran.
But now, the new constitution "has deeper Islamic underpinnings", in the words of a noted intellectual. The Bush regime has been waging a war on the workers of a defenseless target rent apart by strife from the faulty British country scheme organized in 1932 when Iraq got independence.
Isnt the term, 'vehement' supporter a rather oxymoronic thing to say? Anyway, if you make a list of all the nations that gave/sold aid/support and arms to Iraq in that period you will find that what the US sold pales in comparison to such states as France, Germany, Russia. In fact, the USA is tied for 9th place on that list with Libya of all places.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Funny...have they had the same effect on Israel? Have hundreds of thousands perished because of those terrible, terrible sanctions?
nonconformist
Miserable
Hooo boy.
"The United States has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts"
I think you are that FAR right there is no point in talking to you. Explaining facts to you would be like trying to argue with that guy which says that the world is 6000 years old. Pointless.
Yes, US should stay in Iraq. You break it, you buy it.
Wasnt UN supposed to be Irrelevant by now?MobBoss said:
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
For a guy that has "Prophet of Common Sense" under an Icon, you sure don't look you have much of it..Of course...their sanctions apparently don’t kill as many as they used too.
How about reading something about recent history, power, UN, US, Iraq, politics,.. after you will be ready to talk about facts I will disprove your “common sense” answers with facts (or agree if you will be right)..
Moderator Action: Enough flaming other members
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
all under the strict guidence and supervision of the united states. Absent us what would happen? Catastrophe? So we should spend 125b a year to ensure that 50k dont die from disease?Actually, take a look at Resolution 687. It said that sanctions would be ended when Iraqi compliance was determined by the Security council. 2 countries opposed it: the US and Saddam's Iraq. The US would not want the sanctions to end, and since they helped Saddam, well, Saddam wouldn't have wanted it either.
The UN, in resolution 986 (passed in 1995) passed an oil-for-food program to try to alleviate the sanctions.
Two UN diplomats, Halliday and von Sponeck (UN humanitarians) tried to tell the UN about the "genocidal nature" of the US-UK sanctions regime in 2000, but the Brit-Americans wouldn't let them.
The US would stopped water carriers from reaching Iraq when many children were dying from water contamination. The UN rejected the grounds of this stoppage.
The US tried to withhold vaccinations for infant diseases. UNICEF and the WHO weren't too pleased, and protested.
How does it make sense that the UN organized the sanctions when there was such vigorous protest about it?
And BTW, I never said that the US put Saddam in power. I said that they happily supported Saddam without a care for his atrocitied.
In 1953, After Prime Minister (or Prez) Mossadegh of Iran nationalized Anglo-American oil fields (yes, Iran had an elected democracy once), the US overthrew Mossadegh and put in place Shah Reza Pahlavi.
""In 1953, After Prime Minister (or Prez) Mossadegh of Iran nationalized Anglo-American oil fields (yes, Iran had an elected democracy once), the US overthrew Mossadegh and put in place Shah Reza Pahlavi.""
yes all can look that up on wikipedia for more infomation
Operation Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
no wonder they hate us
yes all can look that up on wikipedia for more infomation
Operation Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
no wonder they hate us
Merkinball
Deity
Mr. T. Just a little curious. Do you have anything to back your claims?
Similar threads
- Locked
