Right, cause that’s so much more humane for the Iraqis. Let’s really put the screws to Hussein. Maybe he’ll have to slow construction on the indoor polo courts in his newest palace.
In what way is containment more humane than an outright invasion? How can you people doubt that he’ll murder more of his own people, either by pogrom or by allowing them to starve? Iraqi deaths due to the sanctions aren’t the UN’s or the US’s fault. All Hussein ever had to do was comply with the UN resolution. What did he do instead? He blew $3 billion while his people died.
To those of you who feel that “there are other violations of U.N mandates that are not being enforced” is somehow a valid defense, please try this the next time you get a ticket for speeding. I’m sure the judge will be very impressed when you inform her that there are lots of other speeders on the roads, and you should get off because of it. :rolleyes:
Monsour ( not sure how to spell it ) actually made the point that it was Dubya that was hated and feared a lot more than “Americans” as a whole, which is fair because I’m not too happy with him myself. Most in the region ( again, this is what he said ) think that the Shrub hates and despises Islam. I didn’t argue that he was wrong, because I don’t know that he is.
Oh, yes, that’s absolutely accurate. We have the exact same thing here in America where the police are holding people down and forcing them to do drugs, then arresting them for it. You could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the planet, that’s quite an acomplishment!
I must say, i really don’t understand this “i’m in more danger than you” sort of one-upmanship. Surely we should try to evaluate one another’s arguments based on the content rather than the location of the person? Do you, for example, support chula’s position just because s/he happens to be in Manhattan, and therefore a potential terrorist target? Of course you don’t. I’m just up the road in Baltimore, and i do a reasonable amount of my research at the Library of Congress, smack in the Washington terrorist hotzone, but i don’t believe that this geographical coincidence gives me more right than anyone else to speak on the issue of terrorism and war.
It seemed to me that the Aussies and Kiwis were simply saying that they, too, have a stake in the whole “war on terror” issue. After all, gobear, surely the fact that you’re aware of the Bali bombings should suggest to you that it’s not much of a stretch to think that somewhere like Sydney or Melbourne or Auckland could also become a target if extremists decide to retaliate to a US-led (and Australian-backed) war on Iraq. While it may be a hackneyed phrase, “it’s a small world” is also rather appropriate in this case.
[I should declare a certain nationalistic interest in defending **kambuckta** and others down under on this issue: despite my current location, i’m an Australian and moved to the US a few years ago.]
This analogy is, of course, quite inappropriate. The judge could easily point out that, while he or she is certain that there are plenty of other people speeding out there, the legal system can only deal with people who are actually caught by the police. The judge would then, i assume, assure you that every speeder brought before the bench would be treated equally.
Moving on to the UN Security Council resolutions, it’s not like we need to send the police out to find out who is “speeding” (i.e. violating the resolutions); we already know who they are, and i’ve already provided a link to demonstrate the fact. The problem is that the “judge” in this case (the US and its supporters) only wants to enforce the rules selectively.
I’m talking about the situation in Iraq and the sanctions in place there. If you bring up all that other stuff, the discussion becomes “U.S. foreign policy in reguards to U.N mandates”-a valid topic, to be sure, but not the one at hand.
Yes, dear, I know that. The point is that the U.S. did not just arbitraily impose sanctions, they are in place because of the actions of Iraq, just as drug users go to prison because of their own actions, not because the police enforce the law.
This thread, and the attitude of the pro-war arguers in it, is rapidly turning me from undecided to anti-war. I have seldom seen such ridiculous logic being bandied around.
Why is working in DC some sort of risk? What does that have to do with a possible invasion of Iraq? And just why the fuck can this strange evidence some people claim to be party to not be shared with the public? Seriously, if the evidence is there what advantage is gained by keeping it secret?
For the record, the UN Food for Oil program lifted the amount of Oil Iraq is allowed to export for food, medical supplies and other necessities.
That year, Saddam exported LESS OIL than the year before.
In theory, Saddam could export enough oil to feed his people. However, it’s more important for him to build dozens of palaces and field an army significantly larger than any of his neighbors.
Of course, that’s the UN’s fault, or the US’s. Saddam is forced to spend money on lavish palaces and such, instead of putting the money into hospitals or better irrigation.
You can say that SH is bad because he spends more money on palaces than on food and medicine, but it doesn’t make any sense to blame him for the sanctions being in place.
The problem is that “all that other stuff” (as you so eloquently put it) is a large part of the context within which the US situates its justifications for a military strike against Iraq.
If US officials say over and over that Iraq’s violation of UN Security Council resolutions will not be tolerated, do we not have reason to ask why, in fact, the US is willing to tolerate violation of such resolutions by other countries?
Also, President Bush and his sidekicks have constantly drawn connections (generally pretty spurious) between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and have placed both of these groups within the Administration’s overall foreign policy objectives of the “war on terror” and the “Axis of Evil.” Iraq is not just a single issue; Bush has made it a key part of an integrated approach to foreign policy, and i think it’s only reasonable that we treat it as such when debating the issue.
You mean apart from being one of the intended targets of 9/11 and the capital of the United States? Oh, no reason :rolleyes:
Oh, I agree that the location has nothiong to do with the validity of the argument. My ire was raised because Kambucta said that she in Australia was an equal or greater target for terrorism than those of us in DC or NYC, which is just ludicrous, not to mention her throwing Bluesman’s risk in his wife’s face, which should be offensive to anyone no matter which side of the argument they’re on.
