02-01-2003, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Undutchable
I know they were UN sanctions, but aren't we, the West, the UN? Most of the countries in the Security Council are Western countries and I think we have to accept the responsibility for so many deaths. And in the end, what has it resulted in? Nothing. Saddam still got his food while his population starved and turned anti-Western. Bad politics if you ask me, and certainly not "a price worth paying". Let's see if 500.000 deaths of our own new born would be a price worth paying as well..
Personally, I'm also against Saddam. His tiranny is obvious and he needs to be taken care of, no doubt about it. Personally I think it would be best to get the Arab League, led by Amr Mousa, the most powerful leader in the Arab world at this time, involved in dismantling Saddam. Show the world that America and the West are not actively seeking out aggression against Muslims and show moderation and support for those that are moderate and seek alliance with us.
So far, under Bush it has been Afghanistan, Iraq, and now he's even speaking of Iran. If this action would be taken unilaterally, do you really think people will stand by? The provocative stance needs to go... or we'll face the consequences and loose the war against terror 
|
On one hand anti-war, propaganda groupies talk about how U.S. is acting unilaterally 'against the U.N. body' and against the U.N. will in going to war with IRAQ. On the other hand, when people talk about sanctions they say the U.N. IS THE U.S.A and it's solely the fault of the United States that sanctions were put in place and kept. Make up your tree hugging mind will you. |
|
|