The embargo was dependant on Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. His belligerence has caused their continuation. Therefore Saddam is responsible for the awful consequences that his actions entail.
So, if the United States and the rest of the world can agree that this man is evil, then why is the United States hurting innocent Iraqi citizens? Do you mean we're supposed to punish one man by punishing everyone under his rule? That to me is absurd and a REAL crime. The more I learn about the "truth" behind the politics of the situation, the more I feel sick to my own stomach. As an American, I cannot support the actions of my government when they go against basic principles of humanity. It is sickening to see what is going on over there. It is easy to post messages about it -- but when you see documentarys of little children who are walking skeletons because of sanctions that WE imposed due to the belligerence of ONE man -- that is criminal. We're a multi-trillion dollar nation. We can't find a way to snuff out one man? Where is Osama? Who in the hell is running this show?
I agree with you. The sooner Saddam is taken out the better. They should have just marched right up to Baghdad in the Persian Gulf war (but that is clear in hindsight - at that time the UN resolution was to free Kuwait, not topple Saddam, so they stopped.) Don't forget that under the same UN santions Saddam has the ability to sell oil and buy food and medicine. Yet the funds are diverted to weapons and the maintenance of a totalitarian regime. The blood of millions of innocent people are on the hands of Saddam and his cronies.
That's what is sad... Please kill Saddam eliminate him and send him to hell but stop the killings of innocent people in Irak... Babak believes that I am supporting Saddam and that I am against the US... this is not true.. once again I have a great respect for that county but what is done in Irak and the acceptance of Sharon acts in the middle east is simply criminal... and Bush can really precipitate the world in chaos....
Hold the proverbial phone my friend. Statistics don't mean a thing unless you can prove cause and effect. If the very regrettable loss of the lives of these children occurred after the embargo, that does not mean necessarily it was caused by the embargo. And even if it can be assumed that there is a correlation, it does not necessarily put the fault upon the US. If there is a shortage of food and medical supplies, can it be because these essential goods are hoarded for the powerful and kept from the oppressed? I am certainly not a socialist, but there is such a thing as social justice. And it doesn't exist in places like Iraq. Or anywhere else in the arab nations in the middle east. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me if you yourself would like to be living there instead of in France. And you and I know that the French are not the most tolerant people, yet at least they are good old fashioned xenophobes. They reserve their hatred for outsiders. You yourself have experienced racism there. Only in places like Iraq (and it's neighboring arab nations) can tribal gripes cause bloodshed, bigotry, resentment and other assorted joys among neighbors within their own borders. It may sound cold to stereotype a whole nation, and I wish it were not so, but the truth is, these people are born to hate, to fight, and to be loyal only to what is ingrained in their cultures. You might call this "brainwashed". Pretty sad. And why is this? Because the are deprived of education. And hence opportunity. Pure and simple. We need to just throw money at the problem. The trouble with this idea is that just like food and medicine, it would end up in the hands of the few that don't have the need. What a way to run a society I know you think Israel is a cursed place. Yet the fact remains that it is the only nation in the middle east that allows muslim women to vote. Stop being so militant, and open your eyes. Democracy works. It affords rights, which leads to education, which leads to everything else worthwhile. You yourself are obviously well educated. But I will take a wild guess and say that if you are an educated Arab, you must have either come from a powerful family in the middle east, or from a non middle eastern arab country like Morocco or Algeria. Is this an accurate guess? Peace, my friend, Rs7
Saddam needs to go -- but there is a far greater problem behind all of this. Take Afganistan for example -- there have been assination attempts made by the former Taliban. Well, just how long will we need to keep our U.S. soldiers in this area of the world? We went in and attacked them and took out the Taliban. We can't stay there forever, so when we do pull out, what is going to happen to that country? When we finally take out Saddam, what will replace his regime? Since when has it been our duty to get into nation building? One of the hardest questions that was asked in my Western Civilization class concerned ethics, morality and culture. If a culture finds it morally acceptable to kill women if they steal bread and openly execute them in public, what right do we have as another culture to interfere with that culture? Obviously, there is a strong feeling of resentment within ourselves towards that kind of activity. However, another culture may not feel those same feelings about life and death that we do. I'd hate to turn my back to that sort of thing, because my gut tells me that it is wrong and barbaric. However, that is their culture and there are extreme differences in cultures throughout the world. They need to go through their "cultural evolution" process just as we did. Once Saddam is gone and we are finished with Iraq, more problems will eventually creep up. A lot of this is over one thing, though -- OIL. It is an extremely messy situation. Someone is going to have to do a lot of things that the general public will not like -- but it will prove to be for the better down the road. Some of our best presidents were ones that were not popular at their time -- but eventually proved to be great presidents (Truman, if I may pick one).
This is not the real intent of the US ... 1/ It could have been done 10 years ago and it was not 2/ with this war many more civilians will die 3/ we can eliminate Saddam without a total war... 4/ Bush and Cheney are deeply implied in financial scandals moreover they are closely linked with oil consortiums 5/ Saddam is a reason the US are using to defend their own interests in the region... Pakistan which was a democracy a few years ago is today run by Musharaf a dictator and this guy is backed by the US... It sounds curious to me that on one hand they want to eliminate a dictator and on the other hand they are backing a new dictatorship in Pakistan... a dictator that by the way supported the taliban which was not the case of Saddam.. Conclusion: Unfortunately, oil seems the main aim in that story not human rights nor the defense of the Iraki people...
So you don't have a problem with what the US is planning to do (remove Saddam) but you do have a problem with why they may be doing it (their intentions). Am I reading you correctly? I would also love to hear how you propose the removal of Saddam without any bloodshed.
Babak, Are you talking to me? I don't have a problem with them removing Saddam -- I have a problem with what the US has been doing to IRAQ since day #1 of sanctions because of one man's idiotic nature. He's a criminal, yet we sentence the entire nation. That's real justice, isn't it?