Feb 19th, 2003, 11:39 AM
"This is a fair point, but not all that true. Both the British and American regimes want this war. The American regime wanted this war PRIOR to 9/11. The U.S. has NEVER really placed that carrot at the end of the proverbial stick, and you can see that all throughout the 90s. Whether put in actual policy or not, the end goal has always been to get rid of Saddam. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid."
Bush does not want this war. Bush wants Saddam to abide by U.N. resolutions. Why do you refuse to recognize this? Saddam has had 12 years and he knew that this was his last chance. He has no intention of getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction that France and Germany supplied him with....oops. Did I say that out loud?
"WHILE he was our buddy. Where was the indignation then????
Lets also keep in mind that whether or not it was "innocent Kurds" he gassed is highly debatable. He is a horrible man, who DID gas people. But lets also keep in mind how brutal and terrible the Iranian regime was. They sent children to the fron to be butchered as sacrifices to God. We saw the tactics of the "Butcher of Baghdad" to be a necessary evil back then. Now we use it as a convenient foot note in his indictment."
I might have to agree with you there, I'm simply not aware of the political climate at the time but no matter what it was I can't see supporting that sort of activity by not condemning it.....which leads me to believe that it might not have happened....All that aside, it's got nothing to do with here and now and I will not mention it again.
"For someone who claims to detest the "old ways" of Europe, he sure continues to view the world through that scope. We live in a different world. There are more than two options. How long does Iran tolerate the Ayatollah once they become more liberal both culturally and economically? Placing oppressive sanctions on a country like Iraq is exactly the WRONG way to get rid of a dictator, IMO."
Rumsfeld was the one who said "old europe", not Tony Blair.
Second, the sanctions that were approved by the U.N. are more than enough for the people of Iraq. They are not enough for both, Saddam's weapons programs and palaces...and the people.
"Again, no mention of sanctions,"
He doesn't have to. The way Saddam has abused the sanctions only strengthens Tony's argument.
"and likewise no mention of the advancements in Iraq PRIOR to the first Gulf War. Despite having Saddam as a leader, Iraq has continually been pegged by the UN (forgot the committe name off hand) as one of the most advanced Arab societies. Prior to the Gulf War, they had a water filtration system that made even Europe jealous. Women can attend college, unlike some of our trusted "allies," such as Saudi Arabia (or was it Turkey?? Maybe Qatar?? Our new friend Syria??? Oh hell, they're all better than Iraq, right?)."
Yeah! He shouldn't have invaded Kuwait. Let that be an example to other world leaders.
"Read above. And as for the "Well, Saddam has palaces, his people starve, blah blah," before sanctions his people had water. Yet after sanctions it's somehow his fault they don't. The American economy is struggling, when will our President sell off some of his stock investments, maybe give up the Texas ranch and re-invest it into public works...? California could've used his money not too long ago."
He's not spending the money that he's got taking care of his people. How can you defend that?
|