If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And as I've said Saddam was not an ally of the West (as some US secretary of State said about Hitler and Stalin during WW2 'its a shame they both can't loose') and that was our position with Iraq pre-1990. We supplied Iraq with some photo-intelligence and Iran with some spares - making sure neither side got the upper hand. The Soviets on the other hand supplied Iraq with the vast majority of its weaponary (with some Chinese and a bit of French)
But to be honest I've have more sympathy with those who cry about moral foreign policies if they had cheered when the US removed Saddam and congratulate it on its tough economic sanctions against Castro (another regime which has got the fair share of blood on its hands). Otherwise it seems a little bit selective and based more on anti-US feeling than a genuine care for the victims.
You don't really believe that do you?
You should be taking some of these mate
because your memory is failing you
Not only did Saddam said very clearly and about 750 million times that he did no longer had a single WMD (as it was the case), but he allowed UN inspectors to do their job and it was the UN's verdict that Saddam did not have WMDs left.
How much clearer do you want it?
You're kidding right?
Why would anyone want to congratulate the US government on the most cruel, disproportionate and, crucially, completely pointless boycott in human history?
It has achieved precisely fuck all regarding the Cuban regime and has only succeeded in making life for Cubans indescribably hard.
Given that the US not only doesn't apply such boycotts to other equally awful regimes (or much worse ones) but actually supports and finances them, they deserve about fuck all praise for their boycott of Cuba.
I thought you supported boycotting any regime you believed to have a questionable human rights record. Or were you just singling out Israel before?
On a side note New Labour have never said that they wanted to have, or do have an 'ethical foreign policy' - What was really said was that their 'foreign policy will have an ethical dimension'.
And unfortunately the man to have declared this approach and had any intention of sticking to it now lies six feet under
As for "questionable human rights records," almost every country on earth has a questionable human rights record, its a matter of degree. In some cases at least partially justifiable by their specific situation. For instance the UK during WW2 had a pretty awful human rights record, but this could be justified because it was faced with significant external threats.
The example of Cuba has been given. I'd say the US has worse human rights record, at least in the last 5 years. It, after all, holds hundreds of men of many nationalities without trial (in Cuba itself!), and submits them to treatment which I think any reasonable person would consider "torture." Cuba has faced "significant" external threats from its largest neighbour for some 50 years - whilst posing no threat to surrounding countries itself - including invasions, state-sponsered terrorism, and over 600 assassination attempts on its leader from the CIA. Under that level of external threat, I'd say some human rights abuses are almost inevitable.
I don't have a problem with subjecting all regimes with a poor human rights record to various sanctions appropriate and measured to the regime's actions. I have a problem with overdoing it and being highly selective- both of which the US is guilty of.
To be honest a total cultural and sporting boycott is probably more effective in putting pressure on a regime, as well as avoding to make life harder for ordinary people.
See under dictionary heading for "Clandestine"