4/20 Why do we still have sanctions against Iraq when obviously the Iraqi
gov't does not care?
\_ "obviously". You make this statement based on what?
\_ the Iraqi gov't does not capitulate even though the Iraqi people
and children suffer and die. So simple logic tells me that our
sanctions hurt the innocent and do not accomplish our goals.
\_ Simple logic tells us no such thing. "The children
suffer and die", whose fault is that? Its the fault
of the children's parents. If the parents cared about
thier children, they would overthrow the iraqi gov.
and establish a free society that wasn't interested
in state sponsored terrorism.
Since the parents don't do that, it is logical that
they don't care about thier children and thus why
should we care?
And furthermore, why are the dependent on supplies
from the US to survive? Can't they live on what they
make in thier own country? No, uh, then they have to
play by our rules or suffer the consquences. If you
want my stuff, then be prepared to deal with my terms.
\_ This is the most childish agrument I've heard.
Let's suppose for one moment that you don't
like the US government, why don't you overthrow
it to show the iraqi parents 'how to do it'.
Maybe it's time you get out of soda hall and
see the real world.
\_ You miss the point. The original argument
is as suspect as the one advanced here.
Both are equally invalid.
\_ Yeah maybe you should try. But know what,
you will fail. Why? Because this is the
greatest nation on the face of the earth
and quite possibly in all of god's creation.
\_ like above post says, this argument is ridiculous.
the government controls the military. a bunch of
starving people can't just overthrow the gov't.
the eastern bloc communist countries coudn't just
revolt. and it isn't just a US sanction, the US
maneuvered the UN into a UN sanction by forgiving
a bunch of debts in return for votes.
\_ Yeah, like Solidarity in Poland didn't overthrow
the government? And the founding fathers didn't
overthrow the government? And the Indian National
Congress (literally lead by starving peasants)
didn't overthrow the government. The list goes
on. Machine guns may kill a few people, but the
will of the people will eventually triumph.
If the people in iraq are unwilling to do anything
about thier conditions, its thier problem not
mine.
And what is this BS about the UN getting
"manipulated". Its about F'ing time they
did something our way. Its not enough
that the UN gets my Tax $s, they want to
spend it the way that they want. Screw
that. As long as its our $s at work, its
our way. The UN wants different, let 'em
earn thier own money. Until the UN should
STFU.
If you think that our way is the wrong
way you are welcome to leave the US and
go live in whatever 3rd world hell hole
suits you better.
\_ Our goals being what? Iraq still has a nothing army and isn't
militarily in a position to hurt anyone outside their own
borders. Mission accomplished. You thought we had some other
goals? Sanctions are about isolation. Iraq is isolated.
\_ okay fine, with this argument you admit the US does not
care about human rights. so what then gives us the right
to prattle about human rights to china?
\_ No it doesn't. It says the world isn't the nice little
black and white place you want it to be.
\_ no, it's about the US fucking over people so that
soccer moms can keep driving their SUVs.
\_ No its about the jealousy of other nations
that we have enough prosperity for our
"soccer moms" to drive SUVs. We worked
hard for it and they want to take it
away via state sponsored terrorism.
We have every right to prevent them
from doing that.
\_ we care about human rights. The people in iraq
are oppressed by the current government. There
are only two ways to set them free. Bomb the
current government out of existence or starve
it out of existence. Starving is cheaper than
bombing, though bombing would be quicker.
I favor starving, since its cheaper.
\_ bombing is more fun. I love those CNN giant type
"WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!" headlines on the tube.
\_ So is there some sort of CNN conspiracy where
CNN backs all wars, otherwise CNN would have no
business?
\_ This is the problem. If we truly believed the
rhetoric of Bush and Bush Jr. we should have
destroyed the Iraqi government like we destroyed
the Nazi government. And if they are doing
threatening things we should do it now. Otherwise
sanctions just 'kill babies'. If you think about it
the US probably kept Saddam in power because it
serves US interests. It lets us keep a firm grip.
\_ eventually they will all die, and we will send in
our oil companies to run the place and we get cheap
gas.
\_ so what happens if we lift the sanctions and the iraqi
government starts funding programs of weapons of mass destruction
targeted at the US? - non troll
\_ well they are doing that anyway right? or we wouldn't have
sanctions, eh? besides, china funds weapons of mass destruction
targeted at the US and we don't have sanctions on them. what
i'm saying is our methods don't solve the problem, they only
hurt the innocent.
\_ we should have sanctions on China. I agree that sanctions
don't solve the problem, but its better than bombing.
\_ See above about our goals. And there are degrees to things.
Funding isn't an either/or deal. They might still have mass
weapons programs but they're a shadow of what they could be
if there weren't sanctions in place. The world is not black
and white.
\_ i agree sanctions suck and kill babies, but I can't think
of a better solution.
\_ never fear, the us is gearing up for another hot war in the
persian gulf. Haven't you noticed all the military propoganda
on the tv these days? Start paying attention and it'll become
clear. We'll be at war again within a year. :(
\_ what's wrong with that? i want to watch some real violence/death
on TV.. not enough of it. besides the iraqi are secretly
arming. the coalition has fallen apart.
\_ The Iraqis are not secretly arming. They're doing it quite
blatantly. |
http://csua.com/feed/