Originally posted by: Dari
Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.
fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.
What WMD's?
"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001
Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?[/quote]
You didn't answer my question.
As for those kids, are you blaming the United States, United Nations, or Saddam Hussein?[/quote]
They were right by simply seeing through the US/UK charade with manufactured "evidence" for Saddam's WMD's.
That's a poor answer, if ever there was one. Fact is, after 12 years and 16 Article VII UN Resolutions, Hussein's time was up. The three stooges tried to prevent or delay the inevitable simply because they had vested interests in Iraq. With Iran's 18 years of playing cat and mouse with the UN's IAEA and North Korea playing dangerous games with nuclear, Hussein's numerous warnings were more than enough for a call to arms. I find it simply hard to believe that you don't understand this. Or, perhaps, you don't want to?
Saddam the Bogeyman.
The "vested interests" of France, Germany and Russia is in Iraq is peanuts compared to what they have in the US for example. Talk about grasping at straws.
Doesn't it strike you as a little bit strange that the US, according to you Dari, kicks out Saddam for breaking UN resolutions only to occupy Iraq and continue right where Saddam left off, by breaking UN resolutions! (In this case the US is breaking UN resolution 1483)
------
The US refused to change the UN oil for food program even after it became obvious that it was enriching Saddam on the behalf of his people. The US demanded that Saddam conform to their wishes. Now who in their right mind demands sanity from a criminally insane murderer? Madeleine Albright said she thought the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it". Now of course it follows that the US let those kids die for nothing if what the Bush administration said regarding the WMD's was true and the sanctions failed. But Powell and Rice in early 2001 bragged that Saddam was contained and did not pose a threat to his neighbours. How quickly that tune changed when the neocons got their opportunity after 911.
That's bullsh!t and I'm appalled that you would make such accusations without looking at the facts. Fact is, the US, along with her partners in the UN, tried to alleviate the pain and suffering of the Iraqi citizenry by calling for and getting "smart sanctions." But Hussein found ways around that. We simply weren't going to do away with the sanctions simply because Hussein was abusing the sanctions and crying wolf because children were dying. It's like killing your parents and asking for sympathy because you're an orphan.
"We simply weren't going to do away with the sanctions simply because Hussein was abusing the sanctions and crying wolf because children were dying."
Oh please. Don't let the death of children stand in your way of reaching politically expedient goals.
Go here for information about the sanctions
"The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Program," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued.
The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact, the Oil-for-Food Programme, criticisms of the sanctions and the debate that took place about their termination."
----
There are no heroes in this tale and plenty of blame to go around for all involved. But it was the Bush administration that did the most damage to the UN by ignoring the proper process and going to war for reasons of political expediency. And not France, Germany and Russia as you claim.
Wrong again, the US give the UN's security council resolutions teeth by carrying out such resolutions. Unfortunately, other countries use the UN as nothing more than a talking shop, not to be taken seriously. Others have no problem with American power, so long as it protects their interests. But the minute the United States upholds the UN charter, many cry foul because they accuse us of throwing our weight around. Don't forget that it is the United States that has the most to gain from peaceful world. That is why we created the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and countless other international institutions. These are our children. If they fall, we fall. To prevent them from becoming another paper tiger, we must abide by their constitutions and add oomph to their charters.
Come on. Few topics have been so extensively researched as the hypocrisy of the IMF and the World Bank.
The US cannot unilaterally uphold the UN Charter, especially not by breaking it. Only the security council could have empowered the US to act in the name of the UN. The UN now regards the US as the aggressor and occupier of Iraq.
Everybody agrees that the UN is a papertiger at the moment and in dire need of reform in order to get real claws and fangs. Of course that is the last thing the US wants and there is no way in hell the US would support a program to make the UN stronger, at least not under the current administration the awoved goal of which is US world hegemony (see the Bush doctrine).
---
Why is the US in Iraq right now, Dari? Is it because of the innate goodness in American hearts?
Look at my previous statement and historians will answer that question with a definite: YES!!!
Lets take a look at that innate US goodness of heart as expressed in recent Iraqi history.
First and foremost Saddam is a creature of the US. Saddam would never have been the tyrant he was without US aid. Throughout the 1980's the US provided Saddam with arms (conventional, chemical and biological, and possibly even material for the development of nuclear weapons), intelligence, and money. And not only that. The US provided Iraq with battleplans where Saddam could use his new chemical toys. In the last major battle in the war between Iraq and Iran 1985-88 some 65,000 Iranians died, many by gas.
The entire Middle East is awash with innate goodness British and US goodness. The Brits created Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia (with the US) etc., they also put the Jordanian and Egyptian Kings on the throne. But when Iran decided in the 1950s that it preferred Mohammed Mossadeq's democratic rule to the Shah's, the CIA overthrew democracy in Iran.
* In the 1960's the
CIA supported the Baath party's way to power in Iraq and provided them with the names of all the senior communist party members so they could be taken care of.
* In the 1970's the US
betrayed the Kurds. In the early 1970s, as tensions between Iran and its neighbor Iraq increased, the U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger agreed to support a plan devised by the Shah of Iran to encourage an uprising by Kurds in Iraq. By 1975, Kissinger had secretly channeled $16 million of military aid to the Kurds, who believed that Washington was finally supporting their right to self-determination. The following year, however, the Pike report, issued by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, revealed that the U.S. had never had any intention of supporting a Kurdish state. The Kurdish uprising was crushed ruthlessly.
* In 1979 Saddam came to power.
President Carter begins to support the Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan, knowing full well that a Soviet intervention is practically guaranteed. The US aims to give the Soviets their own Vietnam. They succeed.
* During the 1980's the US (with Saudi Arabia) used Saddam to attack Iran. The US then proceeds to give both sides
cooked intelligence so that the result of the war was a stalemate, which was the aim all along. The name of the game is confusion to the enemy. The US excels at this game. The entire Middle East is in turmoil. The US profits handsomely by selling arms for billions to the region and by oil deals.
The pattern is clear. As long as the US controls a nations oil for and with US oil companies, those nations are safe from war. But those countries that are unreliable (Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran after the fall of the Shah 1979) are pushed into war.
The US is also waging a
proxy war against Iran. In 1987
USS Vincennes shoots down an Iranian airliner, killing over 200 civilians.
US Special Forces and Navy SEAL's sinks half of Iran's navy while giving battle plans and logistical information to Iraqi ground forces in a coordinated offensive. There is also
Iran-Contras and Ollie North. And of course the US did not lift a finger as Saddam gassed the Kurds in
Halabja.
Colin Powell btw was National Security Adviser at the time.
Iraqgate shows how the US (Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.) used an Italian bank to send money to Saddam.
Don't forget that
George Bush Sr. was VP and President during the 1980's and early 90's, nor his CIA background.
* Then we have 1990 and
Gulf War I. Some sources claim that Saddam was fooled into attacking Kuwait. Before his attack, which was premeditated by the Kuwaitis demanding a repayment for a big loan, Saddam asked the US ambassador about the US' opinion. ABC (A line in the sand-series) reported that Saddam came away from the meeting with ambassador Gilespie convinced that the US would not interfere. Be that as it may. As a result of the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War I, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's were killed or maimed.
After Gulf War I President Bush encourages a
Shiite uprising and then stands back and watches as Saddam ruthlessly suppresses the revolt.
During the mid 90's US led sanctions against Iraq and Saddam kills about 5,000 children a month.
And now we have the current invasion of Iraq that has already killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis. And installed a puppet regime full of crooks and frauds.
Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons [/quote]
Edit: damn typos
The answer is the old O-word. OIL. Why do you think the US is looking for bases in Pakistan, India and Bulgaria and supported the rebellion in Georgia? The answer is the oil of the Middle East and the Caspian region. Oil ("vital US interest" to quote Jim Baker) is the subtext to all this posturing about terrorism, bad Saddam and "democracy".
Facebook
Twitter