WHAT IS UP WITH IRAN

[Czar]

Michael,
To punish the government, why are the people being punished?

I get the pig picture, I know Iraq is a military dictatorship. But what I dont agree with are Madeleine Albright said about the situation.

Stahl: We have heard that over half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this is a very hard choice. But the price-- we think the price is worth it.



<< The evil men in power are making a deliberate choice to starve their own people in order to hold onto power. That is not the choice of the rest of the world, that is Iraq's choice >>


So its the peoples fault that Saddam is in power? I belive it was the US gov that supported Saddams way to power. The embargo is directed at Saddam and his government, all of them are suffering because of it, even thouse who deserve it and those who dont. It is not Iraqi's choice.
A Government is just a reprisentitive of the people, but when you have a dicatorship there is no link between the government and the people. With a dictorship when an outside force comes and punishes both the government and the people then the people will just support the dictatorship. That is because the best way to create unity is to find a common enemy.

 

[novon]

I don't know how this thread got off topic from Iran to Iraq. But let me say this, running a country like Iraq under an embargo is a tremendous humanitrian disaster. It was tottaly irresonsible of our supposedly well informed leaders to leave the fate of so many lives in the hands of an obvious lunatic like sadaam. Since Sadaam is not know for his compassionate qualities, we pretty much sealed the fate of millions of innocent people with our embargo, and what ideal would we be supporting with our action? Freedom? Liberty? Justice? No. Money, greed, oil, violence, ignorance. Sometimes I think our leaders are no better than Sadaam in their intentions, only a little more clever in their actions.

 

[Czar]

<< The long term goal of the embargo is to ensure that this idiot doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. He has to destroy the ones he has now, verified by UN inspectors and he is not allowed to develop any more. It is very simple. >>


http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-106.htm
Interview with Scott Ritter, who was part of the United Nations team in charge of dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


<< "Now after seven years of work by UNSCOM inspectors, there was no more (mass destruction) weapons program. It had been eliminated....When I say eliminated I'm talking about facilities destroyed.... >>


The weapons are gone, building up another armory takes years and years.





<< I'm sorry you don't see that Saddam has a choice and he is choosing to let his people die. >>


Saddam is a dictator, he doesnt give jack about his people. He is not the normal western leader who cares about his people, he just wants to stay in power.

 

[GmanBat]

How about lifting the embargo and waging war on Saddam at the same time? Feed the Iraqi people while we smash the nut in Bagdad. There is an Iraqi resistance to Saddam that we don't hear about as much. Put 'em in power.

I know, too simple, undoable.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< Saddam is a dictator, he doesnt give jack about his people. He is not the normal western leader who cares about his people, he just wants to stay in power. >>



Exactly, so lifting any embargo just gives him more money to spend on weapons. His people still die, plus how many others now from the new weapons? Some of you really don't know how things work, do you?

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< "Now, having said that, I firmly believe we have to get weapons inspection back in for the purpose of monitoring...especially if we lift economic sanctions. And I believe that there should be immediate lifting of economic sanctions in return for the resumption of meaningful arms inspections. Iraq would go for that. >>



Quote from same guy, same article. That's it. That's all he has to do. Out gov't has said it time and again. Scott Ritter also says in the article that they have the plans for weapons and all they need is the money. Money that would come in as soon as the embargo is lifted.

 

[Cyberian]

If Saddam has no weapons, why will he not allow UN inspectors in and end the embargo?

 

[Czar]

<< Quote from same guy, same article. That's it. That's all he has to do. Out gov't has said it time and again. Scott Ritter also says in the article that they have the plans for weapons and all they need is the money. Money that would come in as soon as the embargo is lifted. >>


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011121/wl/iraq_un_sanctions_dc_1.html


<< BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said it would consider accepting monitoring of its weapons program if trade sanctions imposed by the United Nations (news - web sites) were lifted. >>

 

[UltraQuiet]

That's my point exactly. They are refusing to let inspectors in. So the embargo continues. Russia inspects the US and vice versa. Why can't Iraq do the same? Because they have something to hide. Like I said, it is completely on him.

 

[CanOWorms]

Every action has its pros and cons, I guess.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< I don't know how this thread got off topic from Iran to Iraq. But let me say this, running a country like Iraq under an embargo is a tremendous humanitrian disaster. It was tottaly irresonsible of our supposedly well informed leaders to leave the fate of so many lives in the hands of an obvious lunatic like sadaam. Since Sadaam is not know for his compassionate qualities, we pretty much sealed the fate of millions of innocent people with our embargo, and what ideal would we be supporting with our action? Freedom? Liberty? Justice? No. Money, greed, oil, violence, ignorance. Sometimes I think our leaders are no better than Sadaam in their intentions, only a little more clever in their actions. >>


I hope that you are using the term "Our leaders" loosely right???? Why? because OUR leader was actually one of the few whom wanted US to proceed into Baghdad BUT, the UN, Britts, Etc. decided we had fulfilled our objective............ Don't neccessarily blame Saddam's continued dictatorship on the powers that were in charge in the US because many of them, including the highest, were against halting our efforts........ Blame THAT part on the others.......we were and have been the ones whom knew the mistake was made and that Saddam will have to be dealt with again........

 

[ToBeMe]

<<

<< The long term goal of the embargo is to ensure that this idiot doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. He has to destroy the ones he has now, verified by UN inspectors and he is not allowed to develop any more. It is very simple. >>


http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-106.htm
Interview with Scott Ritter, who was part of the United Nations team in charge of dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


<< "Now after seven years of work by UNSCOM inspectors, there was no more (mass destruction) weapons program. It had been eliminated....When I say eliminated I'm talking about facilities destroyed.... >>


The weapons are gone, building up another armory takes years and years.

That statement by Ritter is VERY debateable!!!! Tell me, how does one whom has not been "in country" since before he changed his views change them when those that have been, and those that have left has late has this July say Saddam DOES have mass destruction weaponry?????





<< I'm sorry you don't see that Saddam has a choice and he is choosing to let his people die. >>


Saddam is a dictator, he doesnt give jack about his people. He is not the normal western leader who cares about his people, he just wants to stay in power. >>


I agree with this statement.......Saddam does not, and never has cared about the general population of Iraq......

 

[yllus]

I have to say - as someone initially who thought the U.S. could never have gotten anything accomplished in Afghanistan - if you can take out the wackos in Iraq, go for it. Iran just seems to be mouthing off for the sake of mouthing off, and remember they don't have to agree with everything the U.S. agrees with as long as they don't get in the way too much. Iraq on the other hand needs a stabilizing force like the U.N. to step in and bring them up to date on democracy, or they'll wallow for years to come, guaranteed.

To those who say the bombings have done nothing...gee, they really have done a lot in Afghanistan pretty quickly, didn't they? If the UN can do something QUICKLY for once we may have a shot at a decent transitional government too. All it takes is thoroughness and perhaps now we can deal with that.


sully <-- is now a believer.

 

[prontospyder]

<<they have done nothing actively to oppose the Taliban>>

They've supported the Northern Alliance with weapons for many years already.


<<Granted the latest Iranian government is a little extreme>>

President Khatami is a moderate.

 

[Czar]

0sully
when I said bombings have done nothing then I was metaphoricly(sp) speaking of the embargo on Iraq and that they have done nothing. Thats why I put " around bombing.

 

[yllus]

<< sully
when I said bombings have done nothing then I was metaphoricly(sp) speaking of the embargo on Iraq and that they have done nothing. Thats why I put " around bombing. >>


Metaphorically. Yeah, but hopefully if this does happen Bush will have the backup to run a complete assault...though I have a feeling this will cost the U.S. quite a bit, they're hardly a bunch of rag-tag guerrila fighters like the Taliban. It all depends on what the public opinion in the streets of Baghdad is, I suppose.

Anyway...I can't really think of an instance where engaging the 'enemy' in talks has been fruitful. How did the U.S. win the Cold War? By outspending their opponent, nobody really came to terms with anything before the U.S.S.R. fell! Japan? Forced a total surrender and did the occupation thing. Germany, ditto. More generically I don't believe words alone ever solves anything, it always comes down to action. Iraq will sooner or later get itself out of this political slump but it will takes DECADES on their own - this will speed up things considerably. Oddly enough, if you dismiss the 'cultural interference' issue as the crap it is, military engagement in Iraq will be the best for everyone in the long run - Iran is coming along itself, slowly.

 

[Czar]

0sully
good post, though I disagree on one bit. Action and Words together is the only way to solve any problem. With just action you end up doing what "you" think is right and ending up creating more problems than you had to begin with. With just words you get nothing but words. Best is first words, untill everyone agrees to the right words (or at least most people) then action.

Iraq has only one real problem, and that is Saddam and his grip on the country, the rest are just consi... qeuensis (sp?!?!)

 

[Rison]

Czar, you are as anti-american as they come. Almost every post you've posted has been anti-american. You must either be a very ignorant SOB or a hater. I don't think you're the former, so it must be the latter. For a man, i don't think you even have a spine. You're too soft. We americans aren't spineless and we're ready for any challenge. You Europeans are softies and the proof (WWII) is in the pudding. You guys preferred to 'talk' and have 'discussions' with terrorists and dictators while we prefer to wipe them out. If the europeans were in control of the Pacific theater (Pacific war during WWII) you guys would have lost to the Japanese. Your arab apologism and pro-terrorist victimhood philosophy will never work with americans. You guys seem to let problems foster until they're un-manageable, then we have to fix it.

Well, I've heard enough of your stupid arguments. From what I've deduced from your banal thoughts: we should lift the embargo because it hasn't work. We should release saddam from his 'house arrest' that we've had him in. We should reward him for his state-sponsored terrorism (like Arafat of the Occupied Territories).

Well, I'll tell you why we left saddam in power. We left him there because if we neutralized him iraq would fall and there would be no counter-weight to Iran. We needed iraq to keep the iranians in check. Now, his time is up and we must replace him. The iranians will be too afraid to exert their influence once we've put our men in Afghanistan and replaced the iraqi regime. If they do, they will be dealt with by us, not sissy-minded Europeans.

 

[Czar]

Rison, I do not hate the US, I am just very much so against war and just about any kind of unnecisery violence. The US likes its stupid wars, it likes the stupid violence. The US likes to ah heck in in world affairs just for its own interest. I do not support terrorism, but there are a few types of terrorism, there are the likes of Bin Laden which shows terrorism in its worst form. Then there are the likes of Palistinians and other "rebel" forces fighting their opression. Both are bad, but when it comes to the likes of the palistinians then it is their only way of fighting. Terrorism in that form is a last resort. All of it is bad and should not be allowed to happen. And that is the main reason, it should not be allowed to happen, meaning the reason for terrorism should never be there. Bin Laden had a reason, that reason should never be there. There are a few reasons, first Bin Laden is a Islamist fundimentalist that doesnt like anything that is unIslamic. Second, and the reason why the US became a target, the US buggering in, the US Saudi Arabian military base which the Saudis want this base to be gone like it was agreed to. The base was constructed for the gulf war, a temp base, now the war is finished and they want that base gone, but the us doesnt want it gone. Saudi Arabia is the holiest place in Muslim religion, after that comes Jerusalem. The US has a militery base in the Saudi Arabia and very much so officialy supports Israel living and controling Jerusalem. This just pisses of a few people.
War is supposed to be a last resort, not a way of life.

The embargo, it should be lifted because it doesnt work. Reward Saddam, never. I belive the forces should have gone in when they had the chance to take him out. But it wasnt done so now we torture the nation. Embargos can only work under demogracy it will never work under a dictator.

So the US is playing the power game in the middle east, meddling in, thinking no one knows, thinking everyone likes it. People dont, there is a reason for why the US is the most hated country in the world. Acting impearialistic, when we know people dont like how the UK and other european countries acted during their impearilistic time. Same thing here, understand why so many dislike your country.

I´m done ranting here.

 

[Psycho18]

How many alies do we have??

 

[charrison]

Czar,

The saudis have no plans of getting rid of those bases. Since the gulf war, the saudis have purchased quite a few tank/planes and other military equipement from the US. They still heavily rely on the US military on support in Training and maintaince of this equipement. They also know that if we pull out of saudi arabia, iraq will be going after kuwait and saudi arabia again.

 

[pay]

<< One way could be to put an embargo on any nation that trades with Iran and US. That way we can stop their support for terrorism while not dropping a single bomb.


I say screw that, and bomb them to hell. >>



Please shutup, you are embarrassing yourself and your country

 

[Rison]

Then there are the likes of Palistinians and other "rebel" forces fighting their opression. Both are bad, but when it comes to the likes of the palistinians then it is their only way of fighting

Why are the Palestinians even fighting when they have a legitimate government that they recognize? Governments are supposed to deal with those kind of issues. Makes no sense to me. Care to explain it, Czar or anyone?