Israel joins US-UK-al-Qaeda plot to depose Assad

you don't get a dictator to co-operate by asking nicely either.

 

So you teach him a jolly good lesson, by making up lies, and invading, occupying, and murdering the people.

If I am ever trapped, please don't send the US to come free me.

Cheers

 

Don't confuse the issue here jack.

We were discussing the erroneous contention that the UN and the western powers engaged in a deliberate policy of infanticide by imposing sanctions.

I agree that Bush2 lied to invade.

 

You don't seem to grasp what happened. I'm not against sanctions in principle but in the case of Iraq they were used perniciously. Food and medicine was deliberately prevented from reaching the Iraqi people by the US NOT Saddam. This is a fact.

 

Not too hard to do, when everything just merges into one large and perpetual bloodbath, peppered by latest person demonised(various).

- - - Updated - - -

And since then Iran.

And for what?

 

They were UN Sanctions. UN policy.

 

They caused the child mortality rate in central and southern Iraq to greatly increase, while in the north of Iraq, isolated from the effects of Saddams choices, the child mortality rate declined. Or do you only have concern for dead children when you can convince yourself their death is the fault of America?

 

You are splitting straws here. The compositional make-up pertaining to the UN of which the US is the leading world power, effectively means it was US policy, albeit under the UN umbrella. I was happier than most when Saddam had been disarmed of his WMD as early as 1998. This was a sign that the policy of containment underpinning sanctions had worked. It was a successful policy in that strict sense. But it was handled appauling by the US/UN resulting in a terrible human price in terms of unecessary human suffering. The UN was set up to help people, not harm them. The SC should have used 'smart sanctions' to limited it's impact to Saddam, rather than a blunt instrument that that was purposely aimed at the population including children. What happened in Iraq was a stain on all of us, no different in principle to what the Nazi's did - utterely disgraceful.

 

????? Actually they didnt work at all. It was defecting son in laws telling the world of Saddams WMD that "worked" and at the same time demonstrated the total ineffectiveness of containment and sanctions.

 

If you don't consider that sanctions which had effectively brought Iraq into the stone age (and, by 2001 at the latest, neutralized his threat), is not a reflection of the effectiveness of the said sanctions, then I don't know what else to say to you.

 

On a scale of 1-10, how important is UN policy?

 

Try to figure out why the sanctions were put in place. Saddam made it all happen. Nobody else, the blame is his.

What part of consequence of action do you not understand?
If it wasn't for saddam's decisions and actions, the sanctions wouldn't have been put in place.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it depends on whether you are arguing about the existence and behaviour of Israel or just about ANY other UN action, decision, resolution about ANT other country.

 

You certainly do cure a murdering, torturing, egocentric tyranical despot by it tho.

 

Nonsense. Saddam still had the wherewithal to build palaces. He still had the wherewithal to ensure HIS tribe was taken care of. He still had the wherewithal to murder and torture. He still had the wherewithal to smuggle billions in oil out of the country. He still had the wherewithal to divert the oil for food proceeds for his own indulgences.

This stone age assessement of Iraq caused by sanctions is fallacious and ignorant of fact.

 

Now the UN is america's toy. I am amazed. Here I thought that the US was the biggest single obstacle to the effectiveness of the UN - or at least it is when you want to denounce the zionazis.

And you want to goddard Iraqi sanctions? that's intellectually dishonest and actually stupid.

 

Right then.

That is like me trying to spring a person kidnapped, by shooting everyone in the house, and everyone in the entire street.

Job done.

 

Try to figure out that I was in favour of sanctions in principle. It helps to be able to actually comprehend what I'm saying. To reiterate, it's not the sanctions in and of themselves that were the problem, but the deliberate harm that was done to the Iraqi people as a result of their implementation.

 

Sanctions worked in the sense that he had been disarmed, The policy of sanctions was one of containment and the strategy was working.It's a matter of public record. So you are talking out of your arse.

 

In any case, you say that it was Saddam that made the policy of sanctions necessary. However, this conveniently ignores the ironical fact that the United States helped Saddam Hussein obtain the WMD that the UN were subsequently insistent that he be deprived of through the said sanction regime. It's the absolute stunning hypocrisy that you are blind to - the same kind of hypocrisy that saw UK politicians illegally wine and dine him in the Al Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad with a view to selling him WMDs. Wake up man.

 

I think I've been pretty consistent in my belief that the space the UN occupies would serve a better purpose if we demolished the complex and put a golf course there. So on a scale of 1-10, I'd say a -3.

How do YOU rate it?

 

In an interview with Pilger, James Rubin stated:

"The sanctions we've imposed have made sure that Saddam Hussein has not had access to hundreds of billions of hard currency that he could use to build up that mad military machine....to build new chemical weapons capabilities...."

Pilger asked him:

"Don't you think it's ironic that for many years the United States helped Saddam Hussein obtain these weapons of mass destruction to use against his neighbours?"

Following your line of reasoning, Jonsa, Rubin replied:

"No, I don't find that ironic. Iraq's regime is responsible, that's who's responsible. The United States didn't gas the Kurds...."

He continued:

"The seed stock for Saddam Husseins biological weapons was supplied by the American Type Culture Collection, a company that's just down the road from here, in Rockville, Maryland".

"I'm sure they've been prosecuted for it"

Pilger replied:

"No, they had Commerce Department approval".

Rubin:

"To suggest we were sanctioning the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq is ridiculous"

Pilger:

"It's true. The Senate hearing in 1994 heard that this particular company was given Commerce Department approval to sell biological agents to Saddam Hussein. All the documents are in the Library of Congress".

Rubin:

"Are you suggesting that kind of thing was a goal of the United States?"

Pilger:

"It happened, and I'm only suggesting it's ironic that the US gave such support to this dictator, and now imposes an embargo that is causing such suffering not to him, but to the civilian population."

Rubin:

"The suffering is not our fault....they have enormous quantities of food and medicines available. They store it in a warehouse.They don't deliver it."

Pilger:

"The senior UN Co-ordinator denied this.He said 88 per cent of all humanitarian supplies were delivered within a week of entering the country. A report by the head of the UN office of Iraq in New York says that 76 per cent of medicines are distributed and the rest kept as a buffer stock, as directed by the World Health Organization.

More than 73 million dollars in food production supplies for Iraq are currently blocked in New York by your government. Kofi Anan criticises your government for holding up 700 million dollars' worth of humanitarian supplies.....Why have you misrepresented the Unicef report?

Answer fudged.

Source:

John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World ( Verso, 2002)

 

Well, I can answer that one of two ways.

In principle, it should be a ten. Or what is the actual point? If I have a gun, but no bullets, or lest I scatter them in a biased manner, then I defeat any sense of fairness, justice, etc, and I become little more than a huge + expensive, but mainly ineffectual org.

So, that is what it SHOULD be, as well as leaner, faster, more fair across the board, less expensive, less BS ways to veto this and that, and so on.

However.

That is how I would set it up, and having done so I would ensure it were kept that manner.

If it ever started falling short, I would nip it in the bud right away, I just would not tolerate anything but that standard.

All would be transparent, open, and accountable, as well as being put to the general public in an honest and straightforward manner, again no exceptions.

But the reality is light years from that.

It doesn't just come up short, it is not even anywhere in that cosmos.

On that basis, I would give it a nil.

 

not even remotely the same. But carry on with your indignation and support for a truly scumbag murderous basterd.

 

Right. Your hindsight is remarkably inaccurate.

The guy was a murdering, torturing, tyrant who couldn't have cared less how much his people suffered. History has been pretty clear about his reckless behaviour, his continual miscalculations, his ruthless decimation of the marsh arabs and on and on and on. No matter how hard you try to re-write history, it was his behaviour that triggered the consequences of sanctions.


as for talking out my arse, I studied under the great Ace:

[video=youtube;iIVttyxPxnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIVttyxPxnE[/video]

Its a gift that I only use when attempting to communicate with my arse's peers.

 

United States Secretary of State confesses and admits that USA caused mass deaths in Iraq:[video=youtube;x4PgpbQfxgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo[/video]

Donald Rumsfield delivering WMD to CIA regime in Iraq:


Treacherous USA told Saddam it was OK to invade Kuwaite, Promised to help Iraq people overthrow Saddam etc. No one in the world can trust anything the USA says.