I can assure you Cathy that the atom bomb which fell in Japan prevented a lot more Australian soldiers (who were in Japanese camps and who, in addition to being starved of food, were very much ill-treated in an atrocious manner) from being killed. However bad this bomb was, it achieved its purpose of stopping the Japanese dead in their track (no pun intended). As Japan started the fight any action to stop them is warranted in my opinion. Diplomatic solutions cannot be achieved by talking to madmen. freealways
Not in our name, Mr Blair You do not have the evidence. You do not have UN approval. You do not have your country's support. You do not have your party's support. You do not have the legal right. You do not have the moral right. You must not drag Britain into Bush's unjust and unnecessary war http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=385308
As I recall, Churchill gassed the Kurds when the Brits used to rule that part of the world... kinda funny how history repeats itself... the West has gassed the Kurds twice, once directly and once using Saddam (a former ally) as their regional agent... if the West pushes the moral case against Saddam, the moral case is equally applicable to them... Strip out morality and false illusions of Iraq being a threat to the USA and about the only thing left is oil control...
did the brits really do that? sheesh, what dogs.. was there a state of war or something maybe? as for the 'second time', i don't think it was really the west's aim to gas the kurds was it? (or even to harm them at all...) i think you're stretching the truth a bit there candy baby..
As usual, Danny Boy, your eyes are firmly closed to the facts... Churchill gassed the Kurds who were fighting against British rule in what is now Iraq... Here is what Churchill actually said: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes" Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured." It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles: Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan... And as for the second time, the West sold the gas to Saddam in order that he could gas both the Iranians and the Iranian-backed Kurds in order to keep Iraq ruled by the minority Sunni Muslims who were ideologically opposed to the Soviet-backed Iranians, Kurds in Iraq and Shia marsh Arabs in Iraq (all part of a Cold War play, when Saddam was our ally)...
chill candy, i was actually asking an innocent question. i didn't know about the brits and the gas. but re 'the second time', the way you originally phrased your comments ("using saddam as an 'agent'") made it sound like the west wanted some dead kurds, only rather than gassing them ourselves, we hired saddam to do it. which is terribly misleading. btw, you're making me dizzy with the speed you keep changing your stance. first it's about the 'repercussions', then it's about the oil, then it's about having UN approval, now it's back to the oil again... my head's spinning...
>>As I recall, Churchill gassed the Kurds when the Brits used to rule that part of the world...<< I am not saying that it didn't happen Candletrader. However it would be nice if you could quote your source. freealways
Just War â or a Just War? Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises. - The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options â previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations â were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html
Why didn't they kill him or destabilise his regim huh ? Because it is not easy bullshit they do it every time with any other countries like Venezuela etc. Now looking at how US and Arabian Oil interests have always being allied Saddam is just their Muppet to justify a world crisis and spike oil prices ! When he will not serve any more yeah they will eliminate him ?! An evidence that it can be an hypocrisis looking a more trivial case: A judge said that during the Ben Laden Financial Track episod US governement declared they can't do much because African countries were not cooperative to help financial tracks. As he remarks this is a joke the White House has just to make them a phone call... As for Law it is not justice ! Law is made by whom has the power and money. War can be necessary and war against Saddam is necessary, nevertheless when it is hypocrisis, it is doubtful.