[quote=the ikara cult][quote=ni'k]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the ikara cult
Hi Nik
The country would not be stable and secure under Saddam or his sons, and whilst the numbers of the dead are disputed as to whether they run into the millions, its still a lot of people and I dont play that down even if it is less than that.
My point is what happens if Saddam stays in power? Sanctions were pointless and had no effect, the populus was under the control of a dictatorship and the effects were passed on to iraqis on the street. If he had been removed in 1991, this would not have happened for a decade. And if he hadnt been removed in 2003, it would still be going on today and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children would have been dying just to ensure the dictator stayed in power. If the sanctions had been lifted, they would have been used to acquire WMD. Let me know if you need more info on this particular point.
On your 2 points
1. They never had control over their countrys resources before, and so youre right they should do now. If youre arguing against the war it would mean the resources remained in the hands of saddam. At least now we can pressure the US to make sure the Iraqis dont get ripped off (which we should)
2. Why do you assume Iraqis will not vote for a "candidate hostile to US interests"? What if they vote for someone like, say, Ahmed Chalabi, who is and was an Iraqi and fought against Saddam?
Even his Wiki entry shows his hostilities with the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_C...U.S..2C_2004-5 |
first of all the people were suffering because of the sanctions imposed by the US and others which were effectively starving them for a decade. the US could have stopped these sanctions but it did not. clinton could have but he did not.
your point about voting is moot because if the US does not approve of the candidate the iraqis vote for that candidate will not win. the elections are totally rigged and everyone knows it.
and that thing about the WMD's is bullshit, they never had them and it's just speculation to say they would have wanted to get them. and that is not a sound reason to go to war. what you are saying seems to ignore logic, you speculate that if saddam had not been removed hundreds of thousands of children would be dying of poverty (this was poverty was due to US sanctions not saddam) - but the war has killed over a million! you can't be saying that it's better that a million died instead of hundreds of thousands so you must be just ignoring the death toll of the invasion, not to mention the destruction, havoc and poisoning due to chemical weapons use.
and of course they should be let control their own resources but we both know they won't. and putting political pressure on the US government won't work since it is coorporations who are taking the oil, and they just won't listen.
i have no idea why you are touting the merits of chalabi, a neo con shill involved in falsifying the intelligence that led to war. and anyway, we both know the elections are rigged and the US backed candidate who will do what he is told will win.
i am obviously not defending dictatorship, you seem to be defending killing over a million innocents just to remove one dictator which is unacceptable. your argumentation is abhorrent.