Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Iraq is bombed regularly by the US and Britain as part of a no fly zone enforcement.
|
Stop flying there and you want have this problem. The reason those zones exist is because of Saddams hostility and invasion of his neighbors. The no-fly zones are intended as security measures.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-An estimated one million people have died since the sanctions enforced by the UN Security Council after the Gulf War ended.
|
More results of Saddam's refusal to comply with, well, anything. I don't think anybody wants to see non-combatants die, but it's a question of long-term benefits. Are 1,000,000 dead people in the past decade due to sanctions better than 5, 6 or 10,000,000 dead people due to a campaign of conquering?
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Most nations wish to lift the sanctions, but the US and UK continue to oppose any such calls.
|
So? Everyone thinks it is peachy that France and Germany and whoever else stands up for what they want and takes a stance opposing our desires. Why should it somehow be wrong when we excercise the same will?
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Saddam Hussain, whom the US helped to bring in to power in the 1980s, remains unaffected while the Iraqi people suffer.
|
Can't really argue with this one except to say that it is, again, his actions that cause this. The dictator is always the last to feel the effects. That is going to change with the current action being taken.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Iraq used to have one of the best measures in the world for standards of living. Now it is in the bottom twenty percent. In just 10 years of sanctions.
|
Again, those sanctions are not some random activity. They are in place for a reason. If you punish someone for misbehaving (let's face it, Saddam acts like a child so he is treated like one) you don't stop punishing them if they keep misbehaving. We sent him to his room and he didn't learn his lesson. The fact is, lifting the sanctions would benefit Saddam personally as much or more more than it would benefit his people. The wealth of Iraq is Saddam's fortune.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Basic medicines are not available as children die from treatable diseases. (Even Chlorine has been blocked and that is needed for disinfection of water that has already been contaminated from the allied bombing.)
|
Again, this is unfortunate but it could have been avoided at any time in the last ten years by simple acts of cooperation.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Iraq was bombed in 1998 because it complained about who was on the weapons inspections teams. No-one bombed the USA when they resisted weapons inspection team members who were from Cuba or Iran link .
|
This is baloney. Saddam was never bombed for opposing a given inspector. You must know better than to believe that. He has not been bombed for simple words, it is his actions that get him in trouble time and again. He has refused to let DOZENS of those teams do anything, regardless of who was on them. Also, come on... consider the source of the link you posted.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-The Bush and Blair governments have been trying to build a case for a new war on Iraq. In the wake of September 11, 2001 and the new war on terror, the two administrations are trying to highlight the threat that Iraq poses to the world. Much of the world seems to be skeptical, and there indeed seems to be propaganda from many sides.
|
That's true enough. There is skepticism and there is propaganda. Nothing new there.
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJedi
-Depleted uranium and other new technology were used in the Gulf War. Together with the bombing of civilian infrastructure such as factories and chemical plants, the long term effects on the environment are bleak.
|
I don't know anything about this issue, so I can't really reply.
[/B][/QUOTE]
-Iraq attack could cost $200 BILLION (US citizens would have to pay for this war) [/B][/QUOTE]
War always costs money.
SpaceAce