Well it's pretty obvious what a common misconception this is, so I think the media should address it and shed some clarity with a little bit of national coverage. It's just not true.
1) SANCTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE UNITED NATIONS. The U.S. has not imposed sanctions on Iraq. There's a BIG difference between U.S. and U.N.
2) FOOD IS NOT SANCTIONED. People are starving in Iraq because the leadership of the country has no ability to manage assets on a large scale to support the populous of an entire nation.They just don't BUY enough of it. Apparently the would rather spend money manufacturing missles and reconstructing Babylonian palacas than feed the people of the nation. As I understand it, Iraq further compounds this issue by refusing to purchase food from any other than a few "buddy" nations that have some political/diplomatic connections with Iraq - their CHOICE of limiting their purchases to their buddies is an additional restriction on the resource available to them.
3) MEDICAL SUPPLIES ARE NOT SANCTIONED. People with medical problems in Iraq are not suffering as a result of sanctions either. Any lack of medical supplies in Iraq is, again, the result of poor resource management. It is their own doing.
4) If in any other way Iraq is "suffering" as a result of sanctions, Iraq and I raq alone has within its ability to see that the sanctions are dropped and that they are re-engaged in a world of international commerce, quite simply in fact, by complying unconditionally with all the U.N.'s demands. But instead, that bullheaded will fight tooth & nail to the bitter end rather than swallow his pride and slash his ego, and lead his people instead into a bloody battle for nothing.
OK, they are US enforced sanctions. The sanctions were imposed by the UN security counsil, but the reason that there are still sanctions is the US. The US and the UK governments have blocked all attempts of lifting the sanctions at the UN. They refuse to lift sanctions on the country as long as Saddam is in power.
The sad thing is that children are the most affected by the sanctions. Saddam is not affected at all. 500,000 children have died because of them. That's half a million little kids.
Saddam doesn't care if children are dying and neither does the US or UK. It's a standoff of evil. Somebody needs to suck in their pride and do something about it.
Surely you're not supporting sanctions or suggesting that the US should be left off the hook for extending these sanctions for so long.
Originally posted by skippy Saddam is not affected at all. 500,000 children have died because of them. That's half a million little kids.
Of course Saddam isn't affected. He is the one that takes ALL the monies provided to help his country and has built 80 Billion dollars worth of palaces and "Vacation homes."
He has built 4-5 of them in the last 2 half years and the est on them is 11.5 billion. Gee, that money could have possibly saved thousands from death.
Of course Saddam isn't affected. He is the one that takes ALL the monies provided to help his country and has built 80 Billion dollars worth of palaces and "Vacation homes."
He has built 4-5 of them in the last 2 half years and the est on them is 11.5 billion. Gee, that money could have possibly saved thousands from death.
That's true, but he can't touch any chairity that comes into the country like the "oil for food program". That money is regulated by the UN, so the Iraqi government never gets to touch it.
One argument that I really don't like is the "well Saddam did it" attitude I see a lot. When asked about casualties, conservatives will come back with "Saddam has killed thousands...". When you bring up sanctions, most people's first response is "Saddam has spent billions...". I understand what you mean, but just because Saddam does something doesn't make it right. He's a very evil man. He doesn't care about the dying children.
So why should we be doing things that hurt regular people and not Saddam? He doesn't give a damn.
Yes, but removing him would provide his people with equal opportunity. Something they haven't had. 100 percent vote for Saddam on election day? That's because no-body could run against him and he would have killed the opposition
Originally posted by skippy I understand what you mean, but just because Saddam does something doesn't make it right. He's a very evil man. He doesn't care about the dying children. So why should we be doing things that hurt regular people and not Saddam? He doesn't give a damn.
Forgive me, I'm just trying to understand your whole argument here.. it sounds like you're saying that (paraphrasing) "..the sanctions affect the people by preventing them from receiving medical and food stuffs and that they have no direct impact on Saddam Hussein himself, so therefore: why continue this line of pursuit when it does not achieve what we're after." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
To this I say, look again to points 2 & 3 above: the sanctions have NO effect on food & medical, and if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, the country would be faced with the same problem: obtaining enough food & medical for all the people of the nation. They are already not taking care of their own needs, and nobody is preventing them from doing it. It is yet another ploy of Saddam Hussein to attempt to sap sympathy from liberal opponents of the sanctions and make the U.S. & U.N. look like a bunch of big, dirty bastards.
Sanctions \ embargo are designed to stifle the nation's economy, drive them to their knees economically to where they want to play nice and agree to diplomatic terms. Crippling though it may be to the economy, the nation is far from "broke" as many people have tried to point out. They can still afford trade with their natural resources, etc to import the things they need to survive. They CHOOSE not to in order to make a big deal out of it. Judging by your reaction to the situation, I'd say this approach has succeeded at least to some extent.
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker Yes, but removing him would provide his people with equal opportunity. Something they haven't had. 100 percent vote for Saddam on election day? That's because no-body could run against him and he would have killed the opposition
Yeah, that's true but that's what lots of countries are like. The Iraqi's don't want war. They don't think that it's worth the casualties. I know what you're saying, but you have to put yourself in their shoes. Hundreds of thousands of people could die in this next war. Do you really think they want their friends and family to die? Besides, they are allowed to move. If the US has so much to offer them then why aren't they moving here?
I do agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power, but I do not think that the US should act alone and I don't think that the US should own Iraq. I think that the international community needs to continue to work together to find a reasonable way to take him out without slaughtering hundred of thousands.
If we had any sense, we could have cut business deals with Saddam 10 years ago, strong-armed him, and practically taken over the oil fields in return for lifting the sanctions at a lowball price...Now that, on conjunction with dealing FAIRLY with the Israeli/Palestinian issue would have helped our national security.
That's because the U.S. should do things with no strings attached! You see, I'd do business with them with no concern about their, culture, or their record on human rights, or how they treat their women. That's none of my business. And if they don't want to do business at all and just live in tents on top of the oil fields without developing them, that's their right to ...stay the hell out!
Nope, they would still hate us.
The reason is because of their "Holy war" which stands against Christian based countries. Their "Holy War" is not against the countries "Spirits" as people believe. When people reference their countries spirits, they believe in this is the country itself - IE: Spirit of patriotism. This is not the case.
The country is based off a religion outlawed by the Muslim Regime; hence the hatred of some Muslim Extremists.
This is a spiritual battle and is not against America's spirit in the sense that people perceive. They do not understand this statement because they look for "Physical" aspects and cannot comprehend the other if they are unreligious.
Sorry, You're wrong, I just have to disagree. They wouldn't be at war with us if we weren't in their face, telling them that woman must be allowed to wear mini-skirts and drive cars...and oh yeah, Israel get's to do whatever they want.
The U.S USED TO BE a decent country, then at some point PC attitudes came in along with an attitude of "perfection" - Everything must be perfect, we not only must believe a certain way, we cannot deal with anybody who doesn't and if there are still people that don't follow our "enlightened way", we need to RAM IT DOWN THEIR THROATS and force them to do so..it's not the left or the right...it's both! Let people be dammit! If they want to have a medievel culture...LET THEM!!!
Another bad thing was the fall of the USSR! Now there's no counterbalance for the right to consider. There's no powerful leftist voice to balance things out. So the Neocon/Rightist can destroy the average persons standard of living while the idiots who are losing ground cheer them on!
I'm not a leftist, nor a rightist, I can't take a polar extreme view...that's stupid. But with these Neocon J A C K A S S E S in power, we're going to be perpetually at war so they can try and force feed their beliefs on everyone!
The US has always been like that - trying for "perfection". Before WWI we threated all the coutries that got in the way of our trade as we attempted to reach "perfection" through the "open door policy" of trade that we made up and other coutries HAD NOT adopted yet.
you really don't know your history do you?
That's the problem then. Not everybody wants to abide by the U.S. view of perfection, and rather than doing the wise thing and allowing others to live as they please, we need to be trying to ram our ideas, down everybody's unreceptive throats! Ever heard of live and let live? Maybe they don't think the American way is best for them? As every year passes, I see it being less and less the path for anyone.
Forgive me, I'm just trying to understand your whole argument here.. it sounds like you're saying that (paraphrasing) "..the sanctions affect the people by preventing them from receiving medical and food stuffs and that they have no direct impact on Saddam Hussein himself, so therefore: why continue this line of pursuit when it does not achieve what we're after." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
To this I say, look again to points 2 & 3 above: the sanctions have NO effect on food & medical, and if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, the country would be faced with the same problem: obtaining enough food & medical for all the people of the nation. They are already not taking care of their own needs, and nobody is preventing them from doing it. It is yet another ploy of Saddam Hussein to attempt to sap sympathy from liberal opponents of the sanctions and make the U.S. & U.N. look like a bunch of big, dirty bastards.
Sanctions \ embargo are designed to stifle the nation's economy, drive them to their knees economically to where they want to play nice and agree to diplomatic terms. Crippling though it may be to the economy, the nation is far from "broke" as many people have tried to point out. They can still afford trade with their natural resources, etc to import the things they need to survive. They CHOOSE not to in order to make a big deal out of it. Judging by your reaction to the situation, I'd say this approach has succeeded at least to some extent.
Dude, where do you get your twisted information... Fox news? Go to any website and read up on the sanctions. And yes, I know that the sanctions block medicines and other things. For example the sanctions block clorine (sp?) which they need for cleaning water.
You're just hearing what you want to hear and selectivly absorbing information that makes you feel better about your country. Well, if believing lies makes you proud of the US, then more power to you. BTW, send me some reliable sources of your information.
hmm - skippy - look at "oil-for-food..." thread near the top of the forum.
It is directly from the UNITED NATIONS and from reports.
According to this report, they shouldn't be having the trouble that they are.
and if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, the country would be faced with the same problem: obtaining enough food & medical for all the people of the nation. They are already not taking care of their own needs
I would not follow you on that path Sean, you forget that before the first war and sanctions, Iraq was doing very well. It was shown as an example of success in the Middle East.
And beside, with the amount of Oil they have, be sure there will be a lot of people more than ready to help them.
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker hmm - skippy - look at "oil-for-food..." thread near the top of the forum.
It is directly from the UNITED NATIONS and from reports.
According to this report, they shouldn't be having the trouble that they are.
The oil for food program only provides cookies and milk. The Iraqi government is forced to pay for it in advance. Sometimes they get contaminated cookies and milk and there's nothing they can do. Large areas of Iraq don't get the snacks.
Let's say that the program worked out perfectly. Would you want your kids living off of cookies and milk?
And what the f#ck does that have to do with sanctions. It just shows that the UN has reconized the crisis and is trying to do something.
Originally posted by skippy The oil for food program only provides cookies and milk. The Iraqi government is forced to pay for it in advance. Sometimes they get contaminated cookies and milk and there's nothing they can do. Large areas of Iraq don't get the snacks.
Let's say that the program worked out perfectly. Would you want your kids living off of cookies and milk?
And what the f#ck does that have to do with sanctions. It just shows that the UN has reconized the crisis and is trying to do something.
Have you read the report that dreamzwalker posted? It's an impartial analysis straight from the U.N. - we're not making this crap up as we go along..
You say the program provides cookies & milk and that's just WRONG. The program provides what they need and has had positive results.
You say they have to pay in advance: so do I every time I go to the local grocer - what's your point? At this time there is NO CEILING on the volume that they can trade, and yet the volume is not meeting their requirements - how do you suppose that works itself out?
What does it have to do with sanctions/embargo? EVERYthing. Yes there was a problem recognized and which they took specific actions to remedy - that's what comes with sanctions & embargo. It always has and always will. Those people live in the friggin DESERT, they want to play with International Friends, but then start breaking all the rules and you want to continue to play nice with them, ignoring them when they kick sand in your eye? NO. There are reprocussions for their actions. Sanctions & oil trade embargo were the result.
Again: THEY have it in their power to rememdy the situation for themselves, but REFUSE. What does this tell you, nothing?
How can you dismiss something like this with "ah, that's a load of crap!" ? I'm not seeing a compelling argument yet, and trust me: I'm LOOKING for one. I'm still something of a fence-sitter, but I am leaning towards the side that I hear the most rational argument from and at this time it seems to me to be PRO-"enforcement".
It's getting tiring seeing a strong, factual argument being dismissed without a point-by-point, irrefutable response. I sure would like to see a more organized debate, point for counter point until each point is resolved down to the absolute facts and the only thing that remains is "okay, now that we have that settled, is what we're proposing RIGHT or WRONG?"
Have you read the report that dreamzwalker posted? It's an impartial analysis straight from the U.N. - we're not making this crap up as we go along..
You say the program provides cookies & milk and that's just WRONG. The program provides what they need and has had positive results.
You say they have to pay in advance: so do I every time I go to the local grocer - what's your point? At this time there is NO CEILING on the volume that they can trade, and yet the volume is not meeting their requirements - how do you suppose that works itself out?
What does it have to do with sanctions/embargo? EVERYthing. Yes there was a problem recognized and which they took specific actions to remedy - that's what comes with sanctions & embargo. It always has and always will. Those people live in the friggin DESERT, they want to play with International Friends, but then start breaking all the rules and you want to continue to play nice with them, ignoring them when they kick sand in your eye? NO. There are reprocussions for their actions. Sanctions & oil trade embargo were the result.
Again: THEY have it in their power to rememdy the situation for themselves, but REFUSE. What does this tell you, nothing?
How can you dismiss something like this with "ah, that's a load of crap!" ? I'm not seeing a compelling argument yet, and trust me: I'm LOOKING for one. I'm still something of a fence-sitter, but I am leaning towards the side that I hear the most rational argument from and at this time it seems to me to be PRO-"enforcement".
It's getting tiring seeing a strong, factual argument being dismissed without a point-by-point, irrefutable response. I sure would like to see a more organized debate, point for counter point until each point is resolved down to the absolute facts and the only thing that remains is "okay, now that we have that settled, is what we're proposing RIGHT or WRONG?"
Three things:
1. Don't believe everything you read in a UN document. Resolution 1441 is a load of crap and is filled with deceptions and misinterpretations of history.
2. Where does this supposed "fact sheet" come from? Who wrote these facts and why are they so positive when there is still a humanitarian crisis in Iraq?
3. Statistics are cold and impersonal. Why don't you go to an Iraqi hostpital and show your fact sheet to the mother of a dying child.
