This war saves lives.... Iraqi's 5 times more likely to die from sanctions than the war

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Corn

Russia might have voted or not vetoed the sanctions because that happened as USSR was disintegrating, and Yeltzin wanted to be friends with the west.

Well, that's such a convincing argument isn't it? Russia acted in our interests simply because we were becoming fast friends.........LOL. You tell an interesting fairy tale Tool.

US and UK have hijacked these sanctions from their original purpose of keeping them in place until inspections were done, to keeping them in place until Saddam was removed.

When were the sanctions "done"?..........and for a moment let's assume that the US/UK didn't "hijack" the purpose of the sanctions, would it have changed the duration as of last week?

This notion that we are invading Iraq to save them from the sanctions that we ourselves supported is absurd.

Of course it's absurd, because it's your dishonest misrepresentation of the facts that makes it absurd. We are not "saving" anyone from sanctions, we are saving them from Saddam. The sanctions allowed for humanitarian aide that Saddam decided not to disburse to his people.

Russia sold out for foreign aid.
Iraq didn't cooperate with UN because it was obvious that it wouldn't do it any good, and US would use its veto to block lifting of the sanctions while Saddam was in power. If US/UK was serious about disarming Iraq of it's WMD as opposed to removing Saddam, sanctions could have been lifted long time ago. Just lift them in stages as each stage of disarmament is verified. There has to be some reward for disarmament, or it's not going to happen.Iraq allowed inspectors in for 6 years and all they got in return was the 1998 bombing.
Why would Iraq want to undergo 11 years of humiliating UN sanctions to preserve some alledged WMD arsenal that it didn't even use when invaded by the US? You don't find this absurd?

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: flavio
"For almost 10 years, the people of Iraq have been subject to the most severe international sanctions in history. While specific statistics vary, all sources confirm that sanctions have resulted in a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions."

Text

Sanctions are bad for the Iraqi people. I don't think that's news to anyone. What's your point?

 

[Corn]

Russia sold out for foreign aid.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

Iraq didn't cooperate with UN because it was obvious that it wouldn't do it any good, and US would use its veto to block lifting of the sanctions while Saddam was in power.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

There has to be some reward for disarmament, or it's not going to happen.

You mean your own narrowminded opinion of what behavior should require what reward? The necessary behavior was simple, really. Disarm and sanctions would be lifted. Saddam is not a child, or a dog for that matter, yet you would attempt to train him as one?

Iraq allowed inspectors in for 6 years and all they got in return was the 1998 bombing.

Oh, how kind of Saddam to allow UN inspectors into his country!!! What a sweet gesture! Letting inspectors into a country and not allowing them access to where they believe his weapons are is not a behavior that should have been rewarded. But hey, it's nice to see that you believe Saddam to be a victim in all this!

Why would Iraq want to undergo 11 years of humiliating UN sanctions to preserve some alledged WMD arsenal that it didn't even use when invaded by the US?

Why indeed!!!! I suppose it was Iraq's choice, for they could have allowed inspectors unfettered access to the disposal of their WMD arsenal as was dictated by SCR 687 immediately instead of dragging the process for 11+ years!

Oh, wait, that doesn't fit with your Saddam is a victim mentality does it? Ah well, sometimes the real world doesn't quite fit your narrowminded viewpoint.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Corn

Russia sold out for foreign aid.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

Iraq didn't cooperate with UN because it was obvious that it wouldn't do it any good, and US would use its veto to block lifting of the sanctions while Saddam was in power.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

There has to be some reward for disarmament, or it's not going to happen.

You mean your own narrowminded opinion of what behavior should require what reward? The necessary behavior was simple, really. Disarm and sanctions would be lifted. Saddam is not a child, or a dog for that matter, yet you would attempt to train him as one?

Iraq allowed inspectors in for 6 years and all they got in return was the 1998 bombing.

Oh, how kind of Saddam to allow UN inspectors into his country!!! What a sweet gesture! Letting inspectors into a country and not allowing them access to where they believe his weapons are is not a behavior that should have been rewarded. But hey, it's nice to see that you believe Saddam to be a victim in all this!

Why would Iraq want to undergo 11 years of humiliating UN sanctions to preserve some alledged WMD arsenal that it didn't even use when invaded by the US?

Why indeed!!!! I suppose it was Iraq's choice, for they could have allowed inspectors unfettered access to the disposal of their WMD arsenal as was dictated by SCR 687 immediately instead of dragging the process for 11+ years!

Oh, wait, that doesn't fit with your Saddam is a victim mentality does it? Ah well, sometimes the real world doesn't quite fit your narrowminded viewpoint.

You are the one lacking evidence here for your narrowminded viewpoint. It seems like the US is having a problem finding evidence of WMD in Iraq. If Iraq had WMD they either would have used it by now, or they are not the madmen that the US is trying to portray. There was no way for Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. There is nothing Iraq could have done to lift the sanctions. US has veto power in the UNSC, and for a US president to sign off on lifting sanctions on Iraq would have been political suicide. We still haven't lifted the sanctions on Cuba after 40 years.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: flavio
"For almost 10 years, the people of Iraq have been subject to the most severe international sanctions in history. While specific statistics vary, all sources confirm that sanctions have resulted in a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions."

Text

Sanctions are bad for the Iraqi people. I don't think that's news to anyone. What's your point?

Point is those sanctions would never be lifted, but they should have been.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Judgement
Its obvious he was spending money on rebuilding his military, as well as expanding it... instead serving the needs of his people. They are starving and dying because of him, not the sanctions.

I thought Saddam was a facist dictator, not a socialist one.

 

[Sxotty]

That was a good point, the sanctions did not hurt Saddam though, that is what you have to remember. They were aimed at Saddam, but since he cares nothing for the populace he stole their lunch money effectively, so that he could build his destroyed military back up.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: ub4me

but i thought the u.s. is the only reason why the u.n. exists. yes, u.n. sanctions, but very very heavily influenced by the u.s.
if france/russia had their way they wouldnt have sanctioned iraq at all.

you cant play both sides of the street.

I totally agree.

That had NOTHING to do with the Billions directed to them by Saddam ,or the HUNDREDS of BILLION owed to them in debt by IRaq....

BTW way their stance did not change until 1996, when the money started going their way. Until that point they readily agreed and signed into effect sanctions. They just became unwilling to enforce them when it was not in their financial interests anymore.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Corn

Russia sold out for foreign aid.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

Iraq didn't cooperate with UN because it was obvious that it wouldn't do it any good, and US would use its veto to block lifting of the sanctions while Saddam was in power.

Really? Got evidence? Or just an opinion to fit your narrowminded viewpoint?

There has to be some reward for disarmament, or it's not going to happen.

You mean your own narrowminded opinion of what behavior should require what reward? The necessary behavior was simple, really. Disarm and sanctions would be lifted. Saddam is not a child, or a dog for that matter, yet you would attempt to train him as one?

Iraq allowed inspectors in for 6 years and all they got in return was the 1998 bombing.

Oh, how kind of Saddam to allow UN inspectors into his country!!! What a sweet gesture! Letting inspectors into a country and not allowing them access to where they believe his weapons are is not a behavior that should have been rewarded. But hey, it's nice to see that you believe Saddam to be a victim in all this!

Why would Iraq want to undergo 11 years of humiliating UN sanctions to preserve some alledged WMD arsenal that it didn't even use when invaded by the US?

Why indeed!!!! I suppose it was Iraq's choice, for they could have allowed inspectors unfettered access to the disposal of their WMD arsenal as was dictated by SCR 687 immediately instead of dragging the process for 11+ years!

Oh, wait, that doesn't fit with your Saddam is a victim mentality does it? Ah well, sometimes the real world doesn't quite fit your narrowminded viewpoint.

You are the one lacking evidence here for your narrowminded viewpoint. It seems like the US is having a problem finding evidence of WMD in Iraq. If Iraq had WMD they either would have used it by now, or they are not the madmen that the US is trying to portray. There was no way for Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. There is nothing Iraq could have done to lift the sanctions. US has veto power in the UNSC, and for a US president to sign off on lifting sanctions on Iraq would have been political suicide. We still haven't lifted the sanctions on Cuba after 40 years.

First and foremost Saddam submitted a report to the UN admitting HE HAD WMD, he also understood he needed to PROVE they were desroyed. You assume that since they have not used them they don't have them. Why wouldn't Saddam produce the evidence that would save his own butt? You can verify they were destroyed, the equipment and areas could be tested, the waste measured, etc..

The sanctions were dependent upon FULL COMPLIANCE, Saddam agreed to this himself, so what is your aguement again?

 

[Corn]

You are the one lacking evidence here for your narrowminded viewpoint.

So in other words, you've got no evidence to back up anything you claimed.

There was no way for Iraq to prove it didn't have WMD. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.

The original mission of the UN "weapons inspectors" was to oversee the destruction of Iraq's ballistic missiles, biological/chemical weapon stock, and nuclear weapons research. They weren't supposed to "hunt" for them to prove compliance, merely to observe their destruction. SCR 707 condemns Iraq for it's non-compliance of SCR 687, a mere 4 months after Iraq's acceptance of the terms of SCR 687. Link

There is nothing Iraq could have done to lift the sanctions.

A total fabrication! SCR 687 explicitly spells out the means for removal of sanctions. Had Iraq complied there is no reason to believe the US would have vetoed a new resolution repealing the sanctions outlined in SRC 687. Your narrowminded viewpoint leads you to believe otherwise, of course with no evidence of support of such a contention. Further enticements for compliance with UNSCOM inspectors using the carrot of lifting sanctions on consumer goods once a measure of cooperation with weapons inspectors had been achieved was adopted into SCR 1284. Strange......the US didn't veto that resolution.......hmmmmmmmmm.

We still haven't lifted the sanctions on Cuba after 40 years.

That is not relevent to the situation of Iraq. Typical to bring a strawman to the argument though when the facts aren't on your side. You're free to do a google search and read the Security Council Resolutions yourself. I'm gonna doubt that'll happen though because of the unfortunate side effect of broadening your narrowminded viewpoint might cause your sensibilities to be cast into doubt.

 

[Alistar7]

Go corn....