I'm surprised to be the first to SUPPORT Zodiac. First, welcome to TFP. Second, I completly argee with you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiak
If the diplomacy argument is based on the "12 years" that is oft mentioned by Bush supporters, then I would say that as far as Iraq was concerned, diplomacy was working (a heck of a lot better than today's conditions, at least). Saddam was effectively contained within his own borders. I would argue that this method was only partially successful, though, because a half of a million children died in Iraq under a lengthy half a generation of economic sanctions. These sanctions went on too long and were not tweaked when problems arose. Of course, imposing illegal no-fly zones on the country and bombing every time someone walked across the desert with a gun didn't help matters very much.
|
These UN imposed sanctions (mainly backed by the US) killed more people than we'll ever know. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies believe that as many as 70% of Iraqi women are suffering from anaemia as a direct result of the sanctions. By 1996, malnutrition in children had gone up to 23%. Disease has spread and gone unchecked because hospitals and health centers went unrepaired and unmaintained since 1991. School enrolment dropped to 53%. The country was in deep poerty as a direct result of the sanctions. (source:
http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/problem.html)
In 1997, the
United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that: "the effect of sanctions and blockades has been to cause suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children"
The
Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council wrote in March 1999:"Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiac
When going to war, the causus belli always falls upon the invading country, not the country invaded. And how can one prove a negative? Saddam didn't have the weapons and the inspectors were well on their way to confirming that before Bush pulled them out and had his British friends "sex up" a thin case for war.
|
Not to mention (yes, for the millionth time) that there were no links between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq.
Again, welcome to the community.
