Pro sanctions. Against Iraq war.

Former Member

I'm for the world isolating Iraq for human rights violations and if they have weapons of mass destruction. I'm against a war against them because they are contained and because there will always be terrorists in the world because of the advancement of explosives and spread of information regarding how to create them via the Internet.

So my point is: the war on terrorism must never end. The war on Iraq must not start because it won't make us safer.

Former Member

Then you would also 'isolate' all other states that violate human rights?

What if other countries have different ideas on what human rights should be? There claim to isolate your nation would be equally as valid........

Former Member

So youre against a war that will get rid of saddam and his government but you are for sanctions that finance Saddam yet lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis?

Im against a war with Iraq and I am massively against these sanctions.

Former Member

Toad - it's illegal to torture people in the US. That's why the Al Qaeda we capture are being sent to Egypt to be interrogated. And if the US did torture people what would that say about the UK as our most trusted friend? Think man. :-)

Well, I know Iraq can't just go along unchecked. We were allies of Iraq until he mistook that as an invitation to take over Kuwait.

Former Member

Actually our Al Qaeda captives are sent to Cuba (Guantanemo Bay to be exact).

Former Member

I read Egypt too in some cases. I don't know why.

Former Member

Sadam is a Nazi, as every bit as bad as Hitler if not worse. Luckily Sadam’s armed forces are quite pathetic where as Adolf had the world strongest fighting force in the late 1930’s.

We should have got Sadders in 1991/2 it was a big mistake not to and probably cost Bush Senior a second term in office. History has told us that we cannot appease Nazi’s. Sadam must be disposed off whatever the cost.

Former Member

Also Paul I read that it would be good to have a pro West Muslim state between Iran and Syria to end the funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Former Member

I know this has been repeated ad nauseum Paul_2 but it is good to bear in mind that this "evil Nazi worse than Hitler" was the West's bestiest buddy until 1990. Most of the terrible gassing, bombing and torturing of Kurds happened during the late 80s- at a time when both Britain and the US were busy selling weapons to Saddam and not too concerned about the enduring slaughter.

It certainly would make a change if the US was to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to all the butchers, madmen, dictators, tyrants and other unsavoury types that are in power in numerous countries around the world. Unfortunately it has been proved before, and is still being proven today that atrocities will be ignored so far as the nutter in question is seen as beneficial to US interests.

Former Member

True Aladdin, especially if the country over which any given nutter presides doesnt have oil!

Former Member

Unfortunately what you say is true Aladdin. But just because we got it wrong in the past does not mean we should do the wrong thing today.

I agree pnjsurferpoet, a secular, democratic, pro western Iraq, enjoying the fruits of its oil wealth and free trade with the West, will be a real thorn in the side of probably the two most evil nations in the world, its neighbours Iran and Saudi.

Former Member

Where do you get your information from Paul2?, Iraq IS a secular nation already, admittedly the government is anything but pro-Western, but prior to the sanctions Iraq did enjoy the fruits of its oil production and actually since the sanctions Saddam's administration are the only ones who HAVE continued to enjoy the fruits (albeit somewhat less than otherwise) of the sale of oil.

As for evil nations, be careful in painting a whole nation evil like my moronic President is wont to do. A regime may be evil but if we go spouting off about entire nations being evil on the basis of its government's actions, then most of the world can easily rank us as one of the highest on the list. So lets try to avoid sweeping generalisations shall we?

In point of fact, a considerable groundswell of revolt is ocurring now in Iran, lead by certain reformist parties and the country's student population.

So there is a prime example where one can see that third country invasions and the setting up of puppet regimes is both unnecessary and ultimately self-defeating.

Remove the damn sanctions is what we should do and let the people of Iraq return to some soemblance of normal life so that they can handle their own regime changes themselves. Anything less is a return to blatant imperialism and will only bring more chaos and violence to the region and to ourselves.

Former Member

Clandestine, am I overlooking your solution for containing Saddam? He admitted today to seeking out a nuclear bomb but said he is no wheres near one. He invaded Kuwait when he thought he had good relations with the US and Britian. What would he do if he had a nuclear bomb? Wouldn't it be keeping with his personality to invade different Arab states? Isn't that why Kuwait rejected his apology?

Why is the solutions Europe always offers is to do nothing but increase trade with even the most evil countries, i.e. France, Germany and Russia's huge trade deals with Iraq. What does Europe stand for except a lot of liberal speaches that ignore reality and mask dirty deals with filthy leaders?

Former Member

And rushing to start a war, which will not only destabilise the region but increase the hatred that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda use to convert new young recruits, while telling the American public that its all about fighting terrorism (which a war with Iraq is NOT about) and bringing democracy and freedom (which it wont), is "reality"????

Why is it that my countrymen see things in terms of war=doing something and finding other means of isolating Saddam and assisting the indigenous population to take care of their own governance issues = doing nothing??

Sorry pnj, one thing youll learn if you experience the world and see just how complex most foreign relations issues are, is that war is rarely a viable means of conflict resolution for it only brings more problems than what we were dealing with before, and that the hawks who push for war are the ones whose only interests are how much money they are (and yet stand to make) off of pursuing military solutions.

You yourself even admitted to recognising that the Bush family is tied into the Carlysle Group and is making out like bandits from the tax payer money now diverted into the military industrial complex.

By the way, opposition to this war isnt only coming from Europe, its also coming from our own country itself. Even some of our retired Generals have been increasing statements against this whole scenario.

Former Member

Originally posted by Paul_2
Sadam is a Nazi, as every bit as bad as Hitler if not worse. Luckily Sadam’s armed forces are quite pathetic where as Adolf had the world strongest fighting force in the late 1930’s.

Actually, he didn't. The British and French both had stronger fighting forces as late as May of 1940. Germany won the Battle of France anyway. The strength of a military is not the only area that needs to be judged in order to assess the risk posed by a nation.

Former Member

Clandestine, one of my class mates made some good points for going through the UN. The main one against the war for me is that it won't stop terrorism. Being able to spot explosives before they go off things like that will.

But I do think the world has to do something to keep Saddam from expanding again.