|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 13:56:45
Sanctions are the most destructive weapon used against Iraq. It is the death of a country by 1000 cuts.
We can't lift sanctions, because Iraq's purchasing power is so enormous, that Saddam would very quickly get armed to the teeth and renew his conquest of Arabia and ambition to control the world's oil supplies.
But the problem is really difficult, because the Iraqis seemed pleased to have him as a leader (afterall, he received 100% support in the latest referendum on his leadership - no western goverment has that much solidarity.)
So, if we depose him because we see him as a threat to our well-being, we will make the Iraqi people very unhappy as they clearly think that he is doing a bang-up job.
I guess my question to everyone (marl and afrancis, please help me here!):
Do you lift sanctions, giving Saddam carte blanche in procuring whatever he wants for his beloved military?
Do you keep sanctions, allowing the country's economic infrastructure to be further perverted and its citizens to endure prolonged hardship and suffering?
What do we do? Forget war as an option for now. How do we do it peacefully?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-02-07 19:02:45
In my view, the sanctions programme has clearly failed to achieve its objective (to force Saddam Hussein to disarm his weapons programmes). Rather than submitting to the UN resolutions, he has placed the maintenance of his regime over the survival of his people, and as a result allowed them to starve while he lives a life of luxury and (apparently) continues to pursue weapons development. Sanctions only work if the leader actually cares about its citizens. In this case, Hussein clearly does not.
Alright, so diplomacy has failed and sanctions have failed. What's left? I think that a line needs to be drawn where we decide it's time to resort to more extreme measures to force him to comply - such as military action.
I don't want people to die any more than the most dovish member of the French government. But I do think that 12 years of patience is more than enough. Hussein's regime needs to be forcefully disarmed and removed. I welcome anyone to suggest an alternative way to do this, which hasn't already been tried.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Deidden
Date: 2003-02-08 01:36:14
Peacefully, I do not believe it can be done. However, regimes, like biological organisms, have a relatively ephemeral lifespan. Either Saddam will die of 'natural causes', or expunged through a coup d'etat (albeit very difficult, given Saddam's evasive techniques).
As for war, I do not see it as being beneficial for Iraqi citizens in the long run. The optimistic side of me would envision a democratic Iraq with promising economic growth. However, the pessimistic (and perhaps realistic) side anticipates a severe destabilization within the region. Northern Iraq/Southern Turkey may be engulfed in a prolonged regional war, whereas many autocratic Middle Eastern nations may face increased fanaticalism within its civilian bases. Compliance with American 'imperialism' within the region has developed plenty of anti-American sentiment, a war with Iraq can only inflame such feelings, to a point where governments may be unable to prevent military coups.
Also, the problem of a interim goverment after the removal of Hussein's regime remains at hand. With the political landscape of Iraq being factional, it seems most likely to be unstable unless perpetuated by a centralized authority. However, if that authority consists mainly of U.S. forces, that would fuel further anti-American sentiment. If the U.S. is going to invade Iraq, the international community must be there to support the stability of the region in the aftermath as with Afghanistan.
In the end, it appears to be the decision of the better of two evils. But we must take into consideration the implications of authorising force against Iraq; a premeditation rather than a reaction. This will set an example for other nations to 'take the inititive' and invade other nations for the benefit of its 'national security', i.e. India invading Pakistan or China invading Taiwan.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: MEDAC
Date: 2003-02-08 20:09:11
I hate to point out the blatantly obvious but to believe that the Iraqi population supports Hussein is more than naive. The referendum that was held was forced upon the people with non compliance resulting in a vanished family member or something of the like. Just as an interesting fact to outline how deep the state's control runs in the lives of ordinary Iraqis, consider the following: In the weeks leading up to the referendum, the standard dial tone heard by anyone picking up a telephone had been replaced with a man saying what translated to, "The Iraqi people love Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people love Saddam Hussein" over and over and over again.
When the regime is overthrown by whatever "international coaltion" is put together, UN blessed or not, a safe place to put your money is on the bet that the streets of Baghdad will erupt in celebration when Hussein is out. Using the Iraqi people's "support" for Saddam Hussein as an arguement for not going in just doesn't measure up.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-10 13:22:31
That's my whole point.
Canada is full of self-titled "peace activists" who are "concerned" about the Iraqi people and the consequences of a war against Iraq.
Never, since the first Gulf War and on, have any of these "peace activists" worried about the Iraqi people and their absolute powerlessness against the psychotic regime running their show.
In fact, all we here from them is "what about the countless other despots and dictators in the rest of the world..."
Exactly, what about them? When are we going to say: enough. All people have rights. No one has absolute authority over anyone else. We cannot deal with dictators and should actively seek to push dictators out.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Deidden
Date: 2003-02-10 23:08:49
Your belligerence is nauseating. You're also putting words in many people's mouths.
Never? How do you know they never cared about Iraqi civilians during Saddam's reign?
Your idea of the 'peace activist' is myopic, full of unsubstantiated opinion. You claim that Iraqi civilians suffer, and I do not doubt that claim, in general. However, 40+ million American civilians are living with no medical insurance. What's the difference between a seemingly non-existant hospital and one that won't help you?
Secondly, Saddam Hussein (before Kuwait) built an infrastructure for Iraq that consisted of hospitals, schools, and a literacy program (enforced). Is that entirely psychotic?
I only say that to emphasise perspective. While Saddam may be a harsh tyrant, I see danger in the practice of demonizing enemies. (He was once considered a friend of the U.S. read: Rumsfeld - Iran/Iraq conflict)
Lastly, I disagree with your last statement. No one has 'rights'. 'Rights' are an illusion; we only have privileges. It is a privilege to live in a society where your vote/voice seemingly matters, and where some laws have been established to protect you. However, they are not 'god-granted rights', as if they are bestowed upon birth. As a species, we've existed for over 100 000 years, and in only 200 or so of those years have leaders even considered appealing political policy for the plebeians.
Through 5000 years of civilisation - where complex states have emerged, they have always served an elite minority. Some could say that they still do (in democracies). Therefore, we cannot take what we have for granted, and call it a right.
Are we really helping those civilians by bombarding their cities, to initiate the typical Euro - American game of oil for the sake of 'democracy'? I only say that because the U.S. has a lengthy history of supporting brutal dictatorships. (That, and decentralized states are quite fragile to fragmented political groups with open ethnic hostility towards each other.)
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
That link has a comprehensive report on the history on relevent issues.
The language you use is quite similar to Bush, which I find quite disturbing. The West's bellicose nature will only give us grief.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-09 13:40:18
Surely you are kidding. 100% of the popular vote? You don't really think that is a fair, and uncoerced result do you? The Iraqi people are killed and tortured, as well as their families, if they display any small act of displeasure with Mr. Hussein. Just today the leader of the Iraqi oppostion was murdered in Iraq. The naivete and ignorance needs to stop.
I don't get you anti war people. You would rather believe in conspiracy theories with only conjecture and hearsay as evidence, than look at the hard facts which history has taught us, on top of current evidence. The sanctions do hurt the Iraqi people, but their blood is on their dictator's hands; he will use the aid for military, not humanitarian purposes.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-10 11:28:00
Of course, that was "irony"!
If you read anything else I have written in this discussion, you would know that. (I don't expect you to read it though, there's too much already).
We can't lift sanctions, which does hurt the civilians and pervert their economic infrastructure, because we have a lunatic calling the shots in that country.
I agree 100%: Saddam is responsible for all the ills in his country. The US is responsible only in so far as they supported his regime.
9/11 changed everything and the direct link between Saddam and the hijakers is not necessary to prove in order to justify the war.
Reply to this message
|
|
