How will help the Iraq children? [Archive]

z_lionheart

15-10-2002, 01:34 PM

When all the threat of taking war on Iraq by the US, who will be helping or even thinking of the children and old men and women of Iraq. Who to blame for the sorrows and sadness to come?

Balddog

15-10-2002, 04:35 PM

When Saddam is gone, their life will improve dramatically.

sopite

15-10-2002, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by z_lionheart
Who to blame for the sorrows and sadness to come?

Sodam Insane comes to mind...

Now, if the US were razed, I am certain you would be putting the blame at the feet of GWB, right? ;)

z_lionheart

16-10-2002, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Balddog
When Saddam is gone, their life will improve dramatically.

how? by the magic stick of the US. or when Iraq is divided into 2 or 3 different regions. Iraq people under Saddam in the 80's where the most wealthy, modern and educated people of the whole Gulf region. Sanctions what made Iraq what it is now and not Saddam.

sopite

16-10-2002, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by z_lionheart

Sanctions what made Iraq what it is now and not Saddam.

Yup. UN just passed these sanctions for no damned reason at all. Sodam Insane had absolutely not a fucking thing to do with it. Just an innocent in the treachery of the world... :rolleyes:

Balddog

16-10-2002, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by z_lionheart

how? by the magic stick of the US. or when Iraq is divided into 2 or 3 different regions. Iraq people under Saddam in the 80's where the most wealthy, modern and educated people of the whole Gulf region. Sanctions what made Iraq what it is now and not Saddam.

Yes and what happens to those sanctions when Saddam is gone?

Personally ive always been disgusted with the sanctions on Iraq but I accept the fact that they will not be lifted until Saddam is dead or in prison.

Toadborg

16-10-2002, 07:04 PM

in prison. I somehow doubt that that is going to happen, the Yanks will probably put his execution on TV and let the highest bidder pull the switch................:crazyeyes

onenatcons

16-10-2002, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by sopite

Sodam Insane comes to mind...

Now, if the US were razed, I am certain you would be putting the blame at the feet of GWB, right? ;)

So Saddam is to blame for sanctions that deny the average Iraqi of access to medical supplies? :rolleyes:

Toadborg

16-10-2002, 07:23 PM

Well yes because the sanctions are only there because he started a war of agression and was then defeated, I don't agree with them but it is quite clear as to why they are there........

onenatcons

16-10-2002, 11:38 PM

But the sanctions don't work!! All they do is harm innocent people and not Saddam. :) I'd support sanctions if they actually weakened Saddam or the Iraqi government.

Greenhat

17-10-2002, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by onenatcons

So Saddam is to blame for sanctions that deny the average Iraqi of access to medical supplies? :rolleyes:

The sanctions don't deny the Iraqis access to medical supplies. Saddam does that with how he controls what materials Iraq does have access to and can import.

Greenhat

17-10-2002, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by onenatcons
But the sanctions don't work!! All they do is harm innocent people and not Saddam. :) I'd support sanctions if they actually weakened Saddam or the Iraqi government.

So, would you support a war to weaken/eliminate Saddam and his government? That will work.

sopite

17-10-2002, 04:06 AM

Ooooooooohhh!

Greenhat scores with a prima facie case, once again. ;)

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 11:46 AM

Isn't only 'Dubya' Bush who wants a regime change? Other leaders only desire Saddam to be relieved of any weapons of mass destruction, no? :)

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Greenhat

So, would you support a war to weaken/eliminate Saddam and his government? That will work.

I don't believe there should be a war at all!!

The Iraqi people have suffered too much. :)

Eddie_Hitler

17-10-2002, 01:37 PM

Well i will add my two penny's worth.... I say just send an elite team of SAS/Marines and take sadam out. dont execute him publicly as this will create bad publicity for the US/Britain. Just go in a take him out period. Then put some reports out that sadam is dead.

As long as sadam is leading the country he will have access to weapons of mass destruction. We dont really know what he has lined up at the moment. For all we know he might have a nuclear warhead poised and ready to strike at America, or worse the UK!!

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:24 PM

If that was the case (which it isn't) then surely the stupidest thing to do would be to attack...............

Greenhat

17-10-2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by onenatcons
But the sanctions don't work!! All they do is harm innocent people and not Saddam. I'd support sanctions if they actually weakened Saddam or the Iraqi government.

Originally posted by onenatcons

I don't believe there should be a war at all!!

The Iraqi people have suffered too much. :)

In other words, you don't have a solution and don't support a solution. So, what will you do? Sit on your hands? Cry? Hope?

Greenhat

17-10-2002, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Toadborg
If that was the case (which it isn't) then surely the stupidest thing to do would be to attack...............

You would prefer to wait until he had more weapons?

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:36 PM

SMART sanctions.....................

The current sanctions DO restrict medical supplies and materials that are not strictly military in their purpose, I belive baby food is sanctioned.................

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:38 PM

You would prefer to wait until he had more weapons? I was simply saying that in the hypothetical situation that Saddam was heavily armed with nukes etc then the worst thing to do would be to invade. Would you have advocated invading the USSR in the 60's because they were building more nukes?

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Greenhat

In other words, you don't have a solution and don't support a solution. So, what will you do? Sit on your hands? Cry? Hope?

Solution to what exactly?

The above comment may seem like a silly question, but if the US/UK can stop Saddam from acquiring nukes then fine I'd agree. :)

I just oppose a conflict which could increase the suffering of the average Iraqi. They are innocent and have not directly harmed any Western nation. The consistent bombings by US and British warplanes must cease.

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:39 PM

Solution to what exactly?
Best point you have ever made...........

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 03:42 PM

Of course it is :rolleyes:

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:46 PM

No really..............

Greenhat

17-10-2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by onenatcons
Solution to what exactly?

The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems by a nation whose leader has demonstrated a willingness to use them.

Toadborg

17-10-2002, 03:59 PM

leader has demonstrated a willingness to use them. parp.............:lol:

reverse

17-10-2002, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by onenatcons
Solution to what exactly?

The above comment may seem like a silly question, but if the US/UK can stop Saddam from acquiring nukes then fine I'd agree. :)

They can, so you agree.

Originally posted by onenatcons
I just oppose a conflict which could increase the suffering of the average Iraqi. They are innocent and have not directly harmed any Western nation. The consistent bombings by US and British warplanes must cease.

Now you agree, but....

Please make up your mind...

The no fly zones were started to stop saddam from gassing the kurds and the shiite muslims in the south..
You disagree, meaning the UK/US should have let Saddam continue??

You're lost.

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 09:25 PM

I'm not 'lost' at all.

Enforcing the no fly zones has resulted in the deaths of innocent Iraqis (who as I've said have caused no harm to the US).

Why is it just that civilians die in such a manner, due to the actions of their leader? :)

reverse

17-10-2002, 10:38 PM

Even Saddam has not said enforcing the no fly zones has killed iraqis, innocent or otherwise..

Perhaps when
http://www.flying-pigs.co.nz/3flypigs.gif

They do fly you know.. :rolleyes:

onenatcons

17-10-2002, 11:21 PM

Innocent Iraqis ARE killed by stray bombs from warplanes. How is that just? :)

There should be no war against Iraq. The average Iraqi Joe deserves no more suffering. :cool:.

reverse

18-10-2002, 01:02 AM

onenatcons
As they innocently man SAM sites?

There should be no war against Iraq. The average Iraqi Joe deserves no more suffering.

Then meet the requirements of the agreements they signed and its just that simple..

Greenhat

18-10-2002, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by onenatcons
Innocent Iraqis ARE killed by stray bombs from warplanes. How is that just? :)

There should be no war against Iraq. The average Iraqi Joe deserves no more suffering. :cool:.

Well, why don't you just give all your income to supporting average Iraqi Joes...don't they deserve it?

onenatcons

18-10-2002, 01:40 AM

One person's wealth cannot support ALL the Iraqis. :)

I find it comical that I have been labelled as 'lacking compassion' when I post certain threads yet some here reckon that Iraqis must suffer because their leader has done some bad shit in the past. :D ;)

reverse

18-10-2002, 01:47 AM

One person's wealth cannot support ALL the Iraqis.

Why not, after all Saddam has taken all their wealth for himself and to buy weapons.

onenatcons you find it comical? Then history must be your favorite comic book because that's what its filled with, people suffering because of bad leaderships..

Usually after the bad leader is removed the people do better...

But that's only history...

onenatcons

18-10-2002, 02:00 AM

Yet NO people have ever suffered during the 200 plus years of the USA (despite it being a liberal democracy and not an autocracy!!).

Shit, all those blacks denied civil rights due to Jim Crow legislation must applaud your comment regarding mistreatment!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :)

reverse

18-10-2002, 02:53 AM

onenatcons
Yes and I've heard the athenians did not like the spartans.. Past the outburst, what does that have to do with anything..

Is it OK that saddam oppresses his people because the US had Jim Crow Laws??
By using your standards, the Jim Crow laws were OK because of what the UK did some place, or maybe because of something that happened during WWII.. Did you know many slave ships were British and Lloyds insured them, so using your method, the Jim Crow laws were OK..

Point is, that makes no bloody sense at all...

But I am curious, do you actually know what a Jim Crow law was?

onenatcons

18-10-2002, 01:52 PM

You made the point history and I used a historical reference. :) The US ain't got an angelic history.

And yes I do know what Jim Crow laws were. They were designed to prevent blacks in the Southern states of the USA from gaining any right to vote. :)