Next target in the war aginst terror: Somalia ?

[atawa]

If bush sr had done his job right and kicked sadam out (witch he could have easely) there wouldnt be a need for sanctions............

So yeah, I blame the US and UK for all those children who die everyday in iraq.

But off course a 'stable' middle east is more important then some dead children.

Btw, most of sadams weapons he got from the US and country's like kuwait when he was fighting Iran.

Ah well, as long as there is a steady supply of oil......the only reason the gulfwar was started in the first place...

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by animepornstar
well, i´m blaming u.s. and uk

Of course. Blame America (and the United Kingdom) first, find excuses later.

the list of forbidden items that iraq can´t buy is 20 pages long.

Would you like to have him buy components to build a nuclear weapon?

there are 18 bans about medical equipment like heart- and lung machines.

Again, we don't need Saddam Hussein's brutal regime to obtain advanced medical technology. Would you want Iraq's army to become so strong that the even the U.S. can't remove Saddam Hussein?

Civilized people cannot tolerate Saddam's brutal treatment of his people, the nation, and supporting terror and hate throught the Middle East.

Before you blame the U.S., in the typical fashion of socialism, why don't you take a look at what Saddam Hussein does?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by atawa
If bush sr had done his job right and kicked sadam out (witch he could have easely) there wouldnt be a need for sanctions............

Thank your friends the United Nations for that.

So yeah, I blame the US and UK for all those children who die everyday in iraq.

Once again...blame the Americans.

Ah well, as long as there is a steady supply of oil......the only reason the gulfwar was started in the first place...

Just wait until you start paying twenty bucks for a gallon of gas.

 

[Ohwell]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Thank your friends the United Nations for that.

Yeah, I think the United Nations forced Geroge Bush to stop the onslaught.

Once again, blame the Americans

But I do think the sanctions are a little too harsh, I think airstrikes and weapon inspection are enough.

Ah well, at least there is a steady supply of oil... the reason the Gulf War was started in the first place

Atawa, you must not know much, the Gulf War was started by Saddam Hussein because he wanted to take control of the Rich state of Kuwait and be rich, not because he wanted oil.

BTW rmsharpe, I think it is more like 2.00 Dollars for gas over there, but that is expensive still. Too bad America hasn't quite reached mass transit yet, it is great! I don't have to buy gasoline or a car.

 

[atawa]

Atawa, you must not know much, the Gulf War was started by Saddam Hussein because he wanted to take control of the Rich state of Kuwait and be rich, not because he wanted oil.

Ehhhh, thought oil was money???, and with taking control of the kuwaity oilfields, he would have become a verry dominant player on the oilmarket.

Before you blame the U.S., in the typical fashion of socialism, why don't you take a look at what Saddam Hussein does?

So why then does/did the US support country's and groups like pakistan, contra's, bin laden, etc????.

The US invaded a small peaceloving carabian island and kicked out the democraticly elected gouverment becouse they were socialists...they didnt care ten what the rest of the world or the UN thought, so you think bush sr was stopped by the UN?

WOW do you have it figured out rmsharpe

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by atawa
So yeah, I blame the US and UK for all those children who die everyday in iraq.

I do so hate to burst your bubble, but ...

But Sulaymaniyah, a city in northern Iraq with approximately 500,000 inhabitants, tells a different story. Indeed, across a crescent-shaped slice of northern Iraq, the picture is the same: The shops are stocked, and the people are eating. Northern Iraq lives under exactly the same international sanctions as the rest of the country. The difference here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.

 

[Rowan]

The next target will probably be any one who threatens big busness.
[dance] [dance]

 

[scorch]

so, when is the world gonna start bombing france then?
Oh, what about america, i hear theres some terrorists there, mates with that Timothy McVeih guy.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It seems here that there is much confusion as to the reasons for the Gulf War, its course, conclusion, objectives, and the subsequent events that have taken place.

The embargo, sanctioned by the United Nations, and enforced by an international coalition, is aimed at harming the regime of Hussein, and preventing him from rebuilding his war machine. He has lauched two mjor wars of aggression in the area, as well as employed weapons of mass destruction against his own and other peoples.

I take the claims of thousands of dying children per day with a very large pinch of salt, and also completely endorse the devastating reality check presented by Dino Doc. It may come as a shock, but not everything that the Iraqi government says is true, and they are not a benevolent organisation. They realize that the heartstrings of many members of the international community are easily plucked, and therefore play to this objective, through propaganda, and ruthless policy against their own people.

One has gone into detail elsewhere on the reasons as to why the Allied forces did not push on to Baghdad in 1991.

Hussein's reasons for invasion were not simple. It was not spawned from a desire to control the worlds oil supplies, in which case he could have easily continued south into Saudi Arabia and carried out a fait accompli before Desert Shield could even begin.
Among the causes can be said to have been his megalomaniac desire to dominate the Arab world by being seen as the liberator of Kuwait, and the harbinger of the new system. Also the debts owed to Kuwait were significant.
His linking of withdrawal proposals with the creation of a Palestinian state are an example of his opportunistic methods in this respect.
It was an attempt at a mugging on an international scale.

"The US invaded a small peaceloving carabian island and kicked out the democraticly elected gouverment becouse they were socialists...they didnt care ten what the rest of the world or the UN thought, so you think bush sr was stopped by the UN? "

Which one are referring to? Grenada? In which case your analysis is sadly fictional. Please specify, so I can have some fun.


I agree wholeheartedly with rmsharpe, Sun Tzu and andyo on the course of matters, if not in such a bleeding heart commie manner
This is a different type of war, and will be fought in a different manner.

 

[knowltok3]

If bush sr had done his job right and kicked sadam out (witch he could have easely) there wouldnt be a need for sanctions

Gee, I seem to have missed that UN resolution. What number was it so that I can look it up and see exactly where it was that the world asked America to eliminate Saddam.

Admittedly, not removing Saddam in '91 was a mistake, but don't pin all of the blame on the US. The policy since has been crocked in the extreme. Sanctions and bombing on a limited scale. To contimue this would be foolish because it is not a solution and is not bringing about a solution. We can't afford to try and wait Saddam out and pray that in the meantime he doesn't get nuclear weapons. I personally think that Saddam has done enough, even if not in any way connected to Sept. 11 , that he should be removed. He is an enemy to the US and likely to many other nations as well, and to my mind should be eliminated before he can become a danger again.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Scorch, no one is going to start bombing France, and you know why?
The state of France is not terrorist. The Rainbow Warrior is ancient history, and the affair was not open and shut.
As for your crass attempt at a trollish allusion to US support for terrorism, that topic has been covered ad infinitum.

 

[animepornstar]

i´m too tired to talk about iraq, but the number of 500000 children are from unicef. and i think i also must add that iraq got a permission to import 200 ambulances last summer.

isn´t greece a more likely target then france. they have a terrorist group called 22 november, or something, that is supported by local politicans.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by animepornstar
i´m too tired to talk about iraq, but the number of 500000 children are from unicef.

What the hell is going on then?

The United States pays for about 25% of the United Nations budget. Why can't UNICEF do it? After all, we're the ones paying for this thing, Goddamn it.

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


What the hell is going on then?

The United States pays for about 25% of the United Nations budget. Why can't UNICEF do it? After all, we're the ones paying for this thing, Goddamn it.

Sorry about the original angry post. My numbers were wrong. In 1999 the US owed 1 billion dollars to the UN, not 10 billion. and since they have negotiated the repayment. Sorry about the old info. Anyway, why shouldn't the US pay for 25% of the UNs budget? They control 27% of the worlds wealth.

As for Iraq. It's hard not to blame the US for the starvation of 500,000 Iraqi children. US planes dropping bombs, US ships enforcing embargo. But this a UN operation and I find it quite encouraging that the US is supporting it. It shows great character admit you are wrong and to help destroy something you created (the Iraqi military machine). As for the starving children. Well in the 80s Saddam took humantiarian aid given to him to help the iraqis and sold it on the Black Market to buy arms. So unfortunatly we can't send him anymore aid. If anything the embargo needs to be tightened. Plenty of commercial goods are smuggled across the Jordanian and Iranian borders. I have seen pictures of Baghdad shops carrying the Apple G4 computer (which is banned from going to iraq becasue it is too powerful a machine).

Now I am far from a right winger, but what I cannot stand is when fellow left wingers are afraid to fight against tyrany. We're are not bombing peaceful bunnies playing in a meadow. We are bombing a governement that has used, on multiple occasions, weapons of mass destruction.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Iraqi children starve to death...the adults...oh they do okay...how ODD!

Having less children would also help them as they only end up starving...and this 500,000 figure has been around from YEARS! I should know having debated at a public school where the Asian student population was about 40 % and some were members of Hamas...don't give us it.

The Iraqis put themselves at odds with us and continue to support their reigme...governments only operate because the people allow them to do so. And if anyone comes back with saying the army will clamp down on people then I say "They will fire on their mothers, sisters, fathers and brothers" my sympathy is zero...and my belief that Iraq is incapable of feeding its population is ZERO.

If they chose to go against us, refuse entry for our weapons inspectors etc and generally piss us off then WHY SHOULD WE GIVE A DAMN?


P.S I think it is funny people don't make this fuss about N.Korea...why the distinction???

 

[knowltok3]

P.S I think it is funny people don't make this fuss about N.Korea...why the distinction???

Because N. Korea doesn't sit anywhere near all the oil, hasn't invaded anyone in 50 years, and is in no danger of becoming a regional power (Like China would allow this).

As for Iraq. It's hard not to blame the US for the starvation of 500,000 Iraqi children. US planes dropping bombs, US ships enforcing embargo. But this a UN operation and I find it quite encouraging that the US is supporting it. It shows great character admit you are wrong and to help destroy something you created (the Iraqi military machine).

It would also show great character for the UN to admit that this plan isn't working and try something else. I would ask what in the hell we have accomplished in the last 10 years? We've pissed off a bunch of people who are now willing to fly planes into buildings, spent millions sporadically bombing Iraq, and still that dumbass is in power.

We need to take a collective look at what we are doing in Iraq, and by we I mean the world. Either it is good to remove the SOB, and we should get about it, or it isn't and we should appologize profusely and go home. I am in favor of the first one, but what we are doing now is like tormenting your younger brother over and over, eventually he's going to find a way to embarass the hell out of you in front of your date. As a nation or group of nations, it is acceptable to remove this threat.

I think the current mission in Iraq (and by current I mean what has happened over the last 10 years) is doomed to failure. It would show even greater character in my mind to point it out and advocate another solution with a greater chance of success.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by animepornstar
quote#1
about iraq. the older bush didn´t want to dismiss saddam, so i don´t think the younger wants to. he will problary continue the bombings and sanctions that all ready have cost the lives of 500000 iraqian children
quote#2
i´m too tired to talk about iraq, but the number of 500000 children are from unicef. and i think i also must add that iraq got a permission to import 200 ambulances last summer.
[...]

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
[-quote-]
UNICEF, as a member of the UN family, recognizes that economic sanctions are an instrument intended by the international community to promote peace and security, Ms. Bellamy added. "But our concern is that whenever sanctions are imposed they should be designed and implemented in such a way as to avoid a negative impact on children," she said. "Surveys on the situation of children and women are essential to the ongoing monitoring of the humanitarian situation there."
[-end quote-]

Where are you getting your information from? Where exactly is UNICEF saying that it is Pres. Bush's(father) fault and the fault of the sanctions that 500'000 children are dead? Bring some proof with your accusations or be you will be considered a unreliable source of information.

Edit: About UNICEF. UNICEF is a nonprofit orginization that has it own agendas. Their goal is admirable but they use political tactics to spin stories to help their cause. Example:
http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/download/fctsgrfs.pdf
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child"
The pdf starts out by saying that this convention is the most widely ratified human rights convention in history. 96% of children live in States that reconized their rights and are legally obligated to fulfil them. Then it says that only 6 countries have failed: the Cook Islands, Oman, Somalia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (I am guessing that they mean the United States of America). Well, what they don't show from that first page is that Egypt, one of the countries that agreed to this Convention of Child Rights allows children to work all jobs at the age of 12. This includes mining, construction, meat rending, circular saws, anything that is legal work in that country (but would be illegal in the USA and many other countries). So just because the USA or any other country hasn't agreed to a "World Community" document doesn't mean that their standards are lower.

 

[animepornstar]

according to Hans von Sponeck, former un coordinator for the oil for food programme in iraq:

The same (unicef) agency reports that 50.000 (!) children are dying every year as a direct result of sanctions.

source: http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/129.htm

personally i prefer nonprofit organization as sources, but if unicef miss egypt in a report like that... the u.s. are in the report because you can join the army there if you are 17 years old, or something, right?

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whiskey Priest
As for Iraq. It's hard not to blame the US for the starvation of 500,000 Iraqi children.

Someone apparently didn't read the article I linked to becuase based on that info I find it hard not to blame Saddam for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Knowitok 3 WHEN I said I thought it was funny people never made a fuss about N.Korea I am talking about those who hate the Western Action in Iraq. In N.Korea millions have died from famine in the past and we sat back and watched because that regime is an enemy of ours.


I agree that Operation Desert Storm never went far enough...we needed to put a western-style democracies in place, though Islamic States and democracy don't do well together be it due to them or due to Military Coups.


P.S When you had or plan to have children will you consider your ability to support them...would you bring children into the world if you knew you couldn't feed them? These people aren't stupid, so why have sympathy for them for making that decision? Not that I believe that Iraqis are suffering any more than they allow themselves to suffer.