This argument is so hollow. One person is responsible for the embargo: Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the sanctions don't prohibit food and medicine from reaching the people of Iraq ? the onus for that failure lies on Hussein and his government.

Also, the United States and Britain had long been pushing for new "smart sanctions" that would remove nearly all limitations on trade with Iraq. Effectively, their proposal would have increased enforcement of the arms-sale ban and anti-smuggling efforts.

A master of propaganda, Hussein has many convinced that were it not for the sanctions, his people would be living in health and prosperity. He shows journalists and sympathizers the "effects" of sanctions. But even while his people starve, Hussein and his inner circle are getting the best food, housing, and medical care available

The oil-for-food program enabled Iraq to increase its revenues from $4 billion in 1997 to more than $17 billion within a couple of years. Hussein's personal wealth was estimated by Forbes magazine, in 1997, at $6 billion, which is enough to eradicate hunger and poverty in his country. Meanwhile, he has built numerous presidential palaces and monuments since the sanctions were imposed ? with funds that could have been used for food and medicine for his people.

Finally, the claim that 500,000 children have died as a result of sanctions is based on faulty information and partial surveys, and information shared by the Iraqi government ? information based on extrapolations from small, unscientific samples.

That's partially true, but the fact is the reasons countries get involved in war is more complex than most people make it out to be.

There was not one single reason the U.S. got involved in WWI and II. And in fact there was a tremendous amount of debate about even getting involved. Most conservatives at the time were isolationists and opposed getting involved at all. You had others who supported appeasement. You even had many people who actually supported siding with the Germans, including Joe Kennedy (JFK's father.) But, you did have many people who supported going to war for idealistic reasons, and others for simply out of self-interest (which actually dictates most country's war policies).

Quote:

Also, I find it very disrespectful that you only mention the US soldiers fighting against the Nazis - do NOT forget the contributions of the Australians, British, Canadians, Russians, French resistance and many other nations and groups.

Agreed, it was a multilateral effort.

You all talk like you now politics, idiots, go watch some football as you call it.

you quote newspapers like a bunch od pasty followers, like most gfyers

It's also important to state that there is no longer a "ceiling" on the oil-for-food program. Iraq is free to sell mass quantities of oil to generate revenues to purchase not only food and medicine for it's citizens, but the revenues also can go to social programs, infrastructure, employment opportunities, etc.

If the Iraqi people are suffering, I feel sorry for them. The suffering is the fault of one person, Saddam Hussein.

if you don't like me, blow me

USA freed Europe thanks to their intervention in WW II?


Gimme a fucking break.

:glugglug

:glugglug

texas is the reason the presidents dead.

in the 6 years I have been in the Uk I can only think of one or two episodes of real violence at a football (soccer) match and that was after the game in the streets between fans.

The scenes most Americans have in their minds of a football tragedy was not a fight - it was people being trampled to death and suffocated because too many people were left into the ground at too fast a pace and there was fencing at the front of the crowd that prevented people from moving away. So, that wasn't violence it was more on par with the night club disaster in Chicago recently.

I did not read the whole thread, I'm just answering the question of the topic title:

There is NOTHING fucking wrong with the average european people....

except for those people from Rotterdam.....I think they're a little off. :winkwink:

United States
UK
Australia
Poland
Kuwait
Bahrain
Qatar
UAE
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Japan
South Korea
Portugal
Spain
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Holland

OK 26 so I was off by a feww

:thumbsup

Well, first off, there are plenty of americans that dont want to fight or go to war either. Its not just the europeans - our prez. is an ass. Second, we are not going to war to remove saddam - we are going to take over their oil fields. Plain and Simple. If we were looking to get rid of a real threat, we would be looking a N. Korea.....

twinkley

Im just curious if any of the people on this thread are aware that we put Saddam Hussien in power and provided him with a majority of his weapons to overthrow the current dictator of IRAQ at the point in time. And, is anyone else aware that we trained OSAMA & The Taliban to overthrow the government that was in power prior to their control?

Im curious to know if people have taken this into account when forming their opinions?

-King

I am, too, curious on if some pro Saddam people have the ability to think for themselves. The United States trained, or should I say, educated and helped Saddam and Osama in the past to defend themselves against other people trying to take over their own Country. We're not responsible if they go awry and start fucking around just like we're not directly responsible for the thousands of felons in the United States today that we educated through public schools where they were kids. Are gun store owners directly responsible for the actions of their customers 10 years down the road? Using your logic, they supplied the gun so I guess they're somehow responsible for the customer's intentions forever.

Kids dont pick their parents, parents pick their kids.

However, it is suffice to say that if we are going to war, let us agree that we are cleaning up our own mess and not correcting a world problem. Keep in mind that historically all rejimes that we have supported went as follows:

1)Bad in man in power
2)We support some new people
3)give them guns
4)tell them to kill the man in power
5)then after giving the guns let them do as they want.

This can be seen in today's northen alliance.

Dont get me wrong, im all for removing saddam and I think he is a terrible man that should be killed. And I dont think passive action works. However, Im just curious as to the depth knowledge of those who are pro or against the war.

-King

Violence is the way to solve everything. why don't bomb whole iraq kill hundreds of innocent people hey, lets bomb some mothers and fathers too... what about an innocent 20 year old? Who's gonna miss that little crackhead??? Hey kill em all! We love to be murderers!

It is a WORLD problem. What's going on the world right now? North Korea is making Nukes and nobody can stop them. IRAN is considering making nukes also. Do you know how devestating a nuclear bomb can be in the hands of the wrong person? It just takes ONE single nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city to spin the WORLD economy out of control. Terrorist organizations do not have the resources to research and make nukes but ROGUE STATES DO. How can anybody stop these nations from selling the nuke to terrorist organizations once they developed them?? The U.N.? Realize that the United Nations will never THINK of trying to stop this crisis until it's too late. Rogue states know this, but the rest of the world have yet to figure it out. What is the U.N. doing about the Korean situation now? NOTHING. It was only until the U.S. started pushing the IRAQ situation that the U.N. started to wake up again. The war in IRAQ not only takes Saddam out so the world doesn't have to BABYSIT him for years and years to come, but it also sends a message to the other rogue nations that their nuclear ambitions will not go unchecked.

It gets better. U.S. is squeezing out it's best ally in the quest to make Iraqi oil a closed shop. France could come out ahead of the British. Newsfeed:


Certainly, US oil companies look forward to 'privatising' the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam's fall. They have already held talks with leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, the main opposition group. They are not alone in eyeing Iraqi oil.

French, Russian, Chinese and other oil companies have established oil links with Saddam, in the expectation of cashing in once UN sanctions are over. But many are severing those links and cosying up to the Iraqi National Congress. They will have heard CIA director James Woolsey say last autumn, "France and Russia... should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

That could be bad news for British oil chiefs who may expect a payback for the UK's support for the war. Recently Lord Browne, chief executive of British oil giant BP, claimed that his company was being squeezed out in deals between US oil companies and the Iraqi National Congress and called for a "level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if Iraq changes its regime."

Do we hear somewhere:

No it is not about oil????

Yesterday, George spent more time on " do not burn the oil fields" than on the protection of civilians. Probably by priority reasons...