No Worries.... for the millionth time the sanctions were caused by Saddam. The UN also had a relief plan to save the innocent Iraqis, but thanks to the corruption of Saddam they did not receive the 27 billion in humanitarian aid that they should have from the UN Oil for Food program. Can you blame the US for that? Corruption Without the sanctions wouldn't Saddam have rearmed?
The Oil-for-Food programme was established by the Security Council on 14 April 1995. Do the lifes lost prior to this date count? Saddam certainly is the root cause of all these troubles but ... The US along with the UK made a choice to sponser the economic sanction. The consequence of that choice is the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens. The US knew that these consequences were likely when the choice was made.
True, but even if the plan had started in 1991 the same corruption would have occured, don't you agree? It all boils down to Saddam causing these people to suffer, regardless of any US/UN intervention. Saddam still tortured and killed his own people before we got involved, he also built palaces instead of buying food. It is clear that innocent people would have still died without the US/UN doing anything.
Yes. But please note that the Iraqi had a higher death during enocomic sanctions before the oil-for-food program started. It is clear that more died with the US/UK sponsoring an embargo. Saddam is not innocent, but unfortunately neither is the US/UK.
No Worries. UN sanctions bro...not US...UN The world voted to put sactions on Saddam. Why do you keep forgetting that major point. Oh, I know, because it undermines your weak argument. DD
Who said the US or UK was innocent? The USA has not been consistent in its actions by a long shot, however, they are a darned site better then Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc...etc... The USA may not be perfect, but it is a lot better then most. Heck, it allows the freedom to question it's authority, try that in one of the countries I listed above. DD
OK, how about this ... US/UK pushed Iraq economic sanctions through the UNSC. Does that work for you? Or would you rather I said that the UNSC, of which the US and UK are part, sponsored economic sanctions against Iraq which lead to death of many innocent Iraqis. The culpability for these deaths is shared by members of the UNSC. Of course, this sugarcoats the degreee of US/UK involvement. Methinks you are splitting a very fine hair here.
No worries, How about. Since Saddam has ignored the treaty he signed at the gulf war, the WORLD COMMUNITY imposed more sanctions on Iraq. DD
Before this war started you said you were against this war. There has never ever been a question of whether or not the US would win this war. The question was at what cost to US lives, the cost to innocent Iraqi lives, the cost in US dollars, the cost to the existence of an international body like the UN, the cost to our alliances like NATO, the cost of precendence setting preemptive wars, the cost in future animosity/terrorism not from extremists but from moderate Muslims/Arabs. The costs of this war will not be known for many years so it's pretty naive to say these concerns have been shown to be wrong.
Timing, I did not say I was against it, I simply asked why it was our war to partake in...after boning up on the facts and watching the UN prove itself worthless, I joined the "let's do it" crowd. The key will now be what happens in Iraq...we have to go the distance and make democracy stick in Iraq. Funny how we were all afraid of the domino theory in the 20th century and we are trying the same thing in reverse in the 21st century. DD
Oooooh, you know that's not true. You told me flat out you were against this war prior to it starting but it's okay, I expect bandwagoners when things are going well.
The war isn't even over and there's already proof that the Arab world isn't pissed or that there won't be any terrorist retaliation? That's a bold statement but not a surprise from a gambling man
