So we attacked because the UN might have removed sanctions? That seems pretty damn flimsy. Couldn't we have waited until the day after the UN vote? Or would Saddam have done all those bad things in the first 24 hours of his freedom? barfo
He did all those things for years when there were no sanctions. The no fly zones were in response to his reprisals against the Kurds in the North and Shi'ia in the South. The sanctions ultimately had to be lifted because they didn't hurt Saddam in the least but the infant mortality rates and general health of the Iraqi people were terrible. The sanctions had to be lifted. Just not with Saddam there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates Casualty Estimates Estimates of direct casualties of the sanctions remain a highly contested subject, complicated by other concurrent causes, including, according to UNICEF, "the effects of war" and "a dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants."[15] A short overview of claims:[33] "probably ... 170,000 children" (Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003) 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates" (Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001) "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[34] from multiple causes including sanctions.[35] Some news outlets attributed an estimate of 1 million to an unnamed part of the United Nations,[36] but journalist Matt Welch reports that there was no such U.N. estimate.[35] Iraqi Baathist Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5 million (CNN, 6. August 1999) Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) (The Wisdom Fund, "Former US Attorney General Charges US, British and UN Leaders," 20. November 1996) Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) ("Iraq criticizes US, UK at Baghdad Conference..." 10. May 2001) Journalist Matt Welch, Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[19]
I will stipulate that kids were dying in Iraq, so that I don't have to bother to read those links, none of which addresses my question to you: if we were worried about what might happen if the sanctions were lifted, why attack before the sanctions are lifted? barfo
Asked and answered. The no fly zones were put in place because Saddam attacked his people from helicopters after surrendering in Gulf War I. There'd be no will to do anything to him while he did things inside his own borders, and I pointed out who his trading partners (especially arms) were. There's no will to stop Iran. There was diplomatic agreements with N. Korea (made by Clinton/Albright) and they secretly advanced their nuke program anyway. If Saddam wanted to hide such a program, we'd not likely know about it. Or he'd have the funds to do it outside Iraq somewhere. Now I'll answer your other question. Who's next? I'm not a warmonger. If I had my way, we'd have no troops overseas at all (I am a Ron Paul/Libertarian Party voter). However, the places where we should intervene are places like Rwanda, Darfur, and Somalia. If there are any banana dictatorships left in S. America, I'd be fine undoing those. And I'm fine with normalizing relations with Cuba.
You didn't answer my question at all. You are just giving reasons why Saddam is a bad man, not why we needed to attack before the sanctions were lifted. Who would you fight the Iraq war with, then? You can't be in favor of a war of choice and claim to want no overseas troops. Those positions aren't compatible. barfo
Because we saw what he did when there were no sanctions already. I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. We could just apologize to the Iraqis for the 10 years of sanctions and for leaving Saddam in power and bring the troops home, but they'd hate us forever and we would still have their blood on our hands. Given that we meddled all along where we shouldn't have (in those banana republics, too), we have to at least try to set things right before bringing the troops home. Your assertion that it was a war of choice is a false one. There were two decades (at least) of events that piled up making it a requirement to take out Saddam. The only choice, even by your admission, was sooner vs. later, and later would have harmed more people and benefited nobody but Saddam.
Absolutely. Minstrel noted that nationalist parties are the on the upswing in Europe. I'd characterize a lot of those as borderline fascists, more than anything. I'm not sure self-proclaimed conservatives (in here or Europe) would want to be associated with a lot of their party rhetoric.
I didn't like the answer because it doesn't answer the question. Fine that Saddam does bad things when there aren't sanctions. We agree on that. However, sanctions were in place. You assert that the sanctions were about to be lifted, however that didn't actually happen. A hypothetical doesn't justify an invasion. Canada could turn mean and attack us, so maybe we better nuke Ottawa today. Oh, there were more than 2 decades. But history does not require an invasion. If it did we'd have to invade lots of places. And I did not say that we needed to invade sooner or later. barfo
This is very true, it's alarming that parties like the BNP got so many votes (and actually won seats), but some of what has been happening has been mis-reported. Their vote grew by 3.4% last time, but only grew by 1.9% this time. That's still 1000000000% too many, but it's not a fact being widely reported. Their leaders/politicians are a bunch of pricks though, you know, the type of people who were members of Neo-Nazi groups when they were younger (and I would argue still are; the BNP). It's appalling when you look at their history's, and even worse when you think they now get a say in our democracy. I don't care that this is democracy, we simply cannot have people like that in power. This is also very true, but I feel bad for Brown. He's being given hell for two reasons: the shit hit the fan when he was in charge, and he's not charismatic. The lack of charisma is only accentuated when we see Obama, who has enough charisma for the both of them. It's not really been Brown's fault (apart perhaps from lack of regulation of banks whilst he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) and he is being persecuted for it. Either way, Labour will be gone by the next general election, which could be sooner than we think, especially with the government in crisis as it seems to be. I can't believe you referred to conservatism and the BNP in the same sentence without using the word "not". Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of conservatism, but to mention it in the same sentence as those racist, fascist scumbags that are poisoning our country and our democracy is simply unfair.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/30/news/mn-9909?pg=1 U.N. Approves Overhaul of Iraqi Trade Sanctions By WILLIAM ORME, TIMES STAFF WRITER November 30, 2001 Also at Moscow's insistence, a paragraph was added to the resolution calling for "clarification" of the 1999 resolution that imposed the current sanctions. The Russians had long urged the Security Council to set more precise conditions and a timetable for the lifting of penalties if Iraq complied with U.N. demands. "The criteria for suspension and lifting must be specific and must be unambiguous," Sergei V. Lavrov, the Russian ambassador to the U.N., said Thursday after the vote. Without clear incentives and guidelines, the Russians contend, the sanctions will fail to persuade the Persian Gulf nation to open its doors to inspectors. Yet even if Iraq were to suddenly buckle to world pressure and let in the inspectors, it would take at least six months to evaluate whether Hussein's regime has stopped trying to secretly develop weapons of mass destruction, say the U.N. experts who would be dispatched there. "We are not going to drag our heels, but this takes time," said Hans Blix, director of the U.N.'s verification and inspection unit. Technically, the products on the new review list would not be banned outright, and Iraq could argue for the legitimacy of its import requests. "These are supposed to be goods under review, not goods under a ban," said a U.N. official who requested anonymity. The arms embargo that has been in place against Iran for the past decade already rules out all imports of weapons and military equipment, the official noted. But U.S. officials have made it clear they expect most requests for goods on the list to be denied as long as Iraq refuses entry to inspection teams that could verify whether the imports were put to their authorized use. An immediate toughening of the Iraq sanctions system would have met resistance from Turkey, Jordan and other U.S. allies in the region that are supporting the American-led campaign against Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorism network. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/apr/17/news/mn-28249 U.S., Russia at Odds Over Iraq Sanctions April 17, 1999 The U.S. dismissed Russia's proposals to lift sanctions against Iraq, but also said it had problems with a more amenable and detailed British-Dutch draft resolution concerning U.N. policy toward Baghdad. Britain and the Netherlands distributed a draft that would abolish the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi disarmament and replace it. In contrast, Russia's shorter resolution would leave the future of the commission to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and lift all economic sanctions in stages, except an arms embargo.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202/41759.html Russia and France, along with many elected members, were critical of the Iraq sanctions and tried to lift or substantially reform them. The United States and the UK used their political muscle and veto power to keep sanctions in force and to allow minor reforms, until they decided to lift them in May 2003, after the war and occupation. Those seeking an end to Iraq sanctions have organized civilian flights in contravention of the sanctions prohibitions. Such flights came to symbolize crumbling international support for the sanctions, stirring hope that the sanctions would eventually be lifted.
And finally, excerpts from Bush's speech to the UN in Sept. 2002: We created a United Nations Security Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we've dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, these standards and this security are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great. And our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed. As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to Unesco. This organization has been reformed, and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning. Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts, ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In one place and one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront. Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the UN Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents; and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. Last year, the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini and Armeni nationals remain unaccounted for; more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the UN Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed but broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American president. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of 11 September. And al-Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil-for-food and the stick of coalition military strikes. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant? The United States help found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective and respectful and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it - as all states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens and others - again, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis, a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it. The security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest. And open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. We can harbour no illusions, and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages. My nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable and a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power. Events can turn in one of two ways. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbours, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government and respect for women and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.
