sanctions

Discussion in 'Politics' started by smellthecoffee, Mar 14, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. smellthecoffee
    Online

    smellthecoffee Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    it is not acceptable to wipe our hands of this debarcle. We are one of the core member nations and continued the sanctions in spite of the knowledge that they had no effect. Saddam had no regard for his people and basic regard is required for sanctions of this kind to be effective. I would, at any stage, have been supportive of a UN decision to intervene and change the regime. The problem was, and remains, THIS WAS NOT THE PREMISE FOR ATTACK!!!. it is not going to wash if we retrospectively claim that the world is better off. Had the request before the UN been to change regimes upon humanitarian grounds then I think many nations would have taken a different position.
    BTW. I notice nobody has wanted to address the content of the post with regard to Don's pal being propped up. Why is that? let's hear some defense of our support for saddam whilst he was killing Iranians and kurds!
     
  2. CrazyLiberal
    Online

    CrazyLiberal Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    OMG ANOTHER LIBERAL I FELT SO ALONE!! :beer: :beer:
    As to the post, GJ!

    :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    What specifically was the premise for invading Iraq then?
     
  4. CrazyLiberal
    Online

    CrazyLiberal Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Check your private messages Sir Evil. The uncanny Bush/Monkey resemblance Avatar is good but the new one I want is better :D
     
  5. smellthecoffee
    Online

    smellthecoffee Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    GWB stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies due to it's substantial stocks of WMD and accordingly must be disarmed in spite of the now obvious non- existance of such weapons or the capacity to strike. This was the premise for the attack on Iraq along with a deliberate inference that Iraq was involved in 911. If not then please tell me where and when the US stated regime change as the purpose for invasion.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    WRONG!

    Care to provide sources for this nonexistent statement?

    This is what happens when you read moveon.org too much. :rolleyes:
     
  7. smellthecoffee
    Online

    smellthecoffee Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    still evading the question of support for Saddam! and let's chat about that 'Infamous" smiling handshake photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam. Smacks of self intrest don't you think? Or is he only a butcher when he's not on our side? I've never known conservatives to stay so quiet rev up those big mouths and hand me the excuses!
     
  8. smellthecoffee
    Online

    smellthecoffee Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I ask again... show me where and when regime change was given as the specific reason for the invasion.
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I'm waiting for your sources...
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    There was never any one reason given. It was over 12 years of lists ranging from failure to cooperate with investigators, regime change, failure to stop oppressing his people, failure to return bodies and items to Kuwait, shooting at our planes...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page