egafd.com

"Does this mean that all those killed by US & UK bombings, etc, should be counted as deaths caused by Saddam?"

Good point, phillylad. If Saddam hadn't been such a cruel, evil, murdering dictator and destabilising influence, we might not have felt obliged to kick his ass, and consequently no one else would have gotten hurt while we were in the process of 'smartening him up'. Yes, Sadam's got a lot to answer for.


Officer Dibble

the first gulf war was a proper coalition of multi states designed to remove an invading force to another country, I totally lay that at Saddams door yes.

as for the sanctions policy Saddam had the means to feed and medically treat his people, he didn't

"Oh, one more thing, a couple of top-people in the UN, resigned their posts, because of their disgust at the Sanctions policies"

And some other UN tossers were rubbing their hands with glee - 'Oil For Food' proved an excellent opportunity to replenish their personal coffers - while talking the customary load of platitudinous UN waffle and sanctimonious bollocks.


?the Sanctions policies, which were not harming Saddam, but the people, as it was estimated that up to 500'000 children had died as a result of them.?

Well, that?s the idea of sanctions ? to make life intolerable for the target country?s population. So much so, in fact, that they overcome their apathy and fear and then rise up and topple the offending regime. A bit like a siege in days of yor. Trouble is, nowadays politicians are such Nancy boys, wankers, and self-serving fuckers, that they don?t have the balls or the unity to enforce a proper siege, proper sanctions. They just go for a wishy washy, never-ending, halfway house, that isn?t quite enough to inflame the population?s passions and cause them to rise up and depose their offending ruler. It?s simply just enough to make them miserable.


Officer Dibble

Firstly, before the 1st Gulf War, the US knew that Saddam was about to invade Kuwait, put the name, 'April Glasby' into a search engine and you will find:

'The United States made it known that Kuwait was not under its protection. When a dispute arose between Iraq and Kuwait after the end of the Iraq-Iran war, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glasby, informed Saddam Hussein that such inter-Arab disputes were no concern of the United States. Saddam Hussein took this as a green light to invade and occupy Kuwait.'

Have a quick look at: http://www.russfound.org/Enet/iraqcrisis.htm for a short look at the US & UK's history with Iraq and Saddam.

Diplodocus stated: that the first Gulf War was designed to, 'remove an invading force to another country' and as such all Iraqi deaths are Saddams fault, I seriously doubt that as the US, UK & France armed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, so Saddam attacking another country can't be the reason we invaded.

Officer Dibble stated: 'And some other UN tossers were rubbing their hands with glee - 'Oil For Food' proved an excellent opportunity to replenish their personal coffers - while talking the customary load of platitudinous UN waffle and sanctimonious bollocks'

With your opinion regarding the, 'UN tossers' I agree, that the majority are self-seeking arseholes, but that doesn't take away the fact that over 500'000 died as a result of sanctions.

Diplodocus' second point was: 'as for the sanctions policy Saddam had the means to feed and medically treat his people, he didn't'.
Officer Dibble's second point was: ' Well, that?s the idea of sanctions ? to make life intolerable for the target country?s population. So much so, in fact, that they overcome their apathy and fear and then rise up and topple the offending regime' and 'They just go for a wishy washy, never-ending, halfway house, that isn?t quite enough to inflame the population?s passions and cause them to rise up and depose their offending ruler. It?s simply just enough to make them miserable'.

Firstly a few questions, how does starving a population and denying them the basic necessities for survival, make them able to rise up against Saddam? How can someone condemn Saddam for killing his people and then just brush-off the 1/2 million dead, by saying that'll make them riseup against Saddam.

Also, when we invaded one of the many reasons was that Saddam, 'used chemical weapons against his own people', do you question out motives when we use chemical weapons in Faluja, when the main victims were women and children, and anyone that would have been an, 'insurgent' would have pissed off ages ago?

Anyhow, here are a few quotes from a great book worth reading, to know the effects of sanctions, to at least question our Governments' motives for invading Iraq, the book is:
* John Pilger: The New Rulers of the World:

Page 57: 'Sixteen heart and lung machines were put, 'on hold' because they contained computer chips'. ' Cleaning materials, such as chlorine, are, 'dual use'.
Page 60: In 1999, a humanitarian panel was set up by the Security Council and charged that, 'the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council'.
Page 71: 'Before Christmas 1999, The Department of Trade and Industry in London restricted th export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever' because the children's vaccines were, 'capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction'.
Page 91: 'One of the most persistent lies was, 'Saddam has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies, which he refuses to distribute'. The United Nations, right up to Kofi Annan, had refuted this. George Somerwill, the United Nations spokesman on Iraq said, 'Not one of [the UN's] observation mechanisms has reported any major problem in humanitarian supplies being diverted, switched, or in anyway misused'.
Page 92: ' Before sanctions, Iraqis consumed more than 3'000 calories a day, 92% of people had safe water and 93% enjoyed free health care. Adult literacy was one of the highest in the world, at around 95%'.

Cheers!

Philylad13.

P.S. I just don't understand how we had to, 'kick his [Saddam's] ass', because he is, 'a cruel, evil, murdering dictator'. If Saddam is a bad guy for killing his own people, how can we & our Government's claim to be the good guys when we do the exact same thing on a comparable scale?

ah yes, John Pilger, that guru of non-biased reporting, I can see where your argument is going now. No agenda there then

you seem very quick to blame the US and UK, I see no mention of all the other countries involved in sanctions or the Gulf war or supplying Saddam

you state

'The United States made it known that Kuwait was not under its protection. When a dispute arose between Iraq and Kuwait after the end of the Iraq-Iran war, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glasby, informed Saddam Hussein that such inter-Arab disputes were no concern of the United States. Saddam Hussein took this as a green light to invade and occupy Kuwait.'

so that makes it ok then

you also fail to state it was the UN that sanctioned the first war

hell if you want to go back further lets really lay the blame at Serbia for indirectly starting WW1 which led to the UK forming Iraq in the first place.

lets lay the blame anywhere but poor old Saddam, it's not his fault he had to kill millions, it must be our governments, or really you and I, we voted them in

your arguments are crap and one sided, this discussion is pointless

"Firstly, before the 1st Gulf War, the US knew that Saddam was about to invade Kuwait,"

OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn?t. But, so what? When we told Saddam to remove his tanks from Kuwait?s lawn he didn't. Consequently, we were forced to 'give him a slap.' We can't have third world knobheads thumbing their noses at us, now, can we? They need to show some respect.


"Firstly a few questions, how does starving a population and denying them the basic necessities for survival, make them able to rise up against Saddam?"

Because before they all drop down dead of hunger, the old human survival instinct would kick in, and, in Iraq's instance, the populace would have thought - 'Dam, we're well hungry, peckish is not the word. But it's all that Saddam fucker's fault - falling out with the western powers an' all, trying to look the big man. He's ruining the fucking country and making our lives a misery with his despotic antics. We've got to get rid of him, sharpish! - Grab yer pitchforks, lads! Let?s storm the fucking palace! - Whhhaaaayyyy!!!!


"How can someone condemn Saddam for killing his people and then just brush-off the 1/2 million dead,"

It's easy when you don't have any middleclass moral pretensions. It's easy when one doesn?t feel the need to justify oneself and make amends for one?s cosy middleclass life by continually scourging oneself with the oh so fashionable woes of the world. It's easy when you?re quietly confident and at ease with yourself. It's easy you don't need the cosy glow of approval from middleclass peers or be so insecure that you need to lean on the crutch of assumed moral superiority. Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not glad those people are dead, I didn't wish them any particular ill will, and I feel just as upset about it as the man on the Clapham omnibus, the ordinary Joe on the street ? which, I regret to say, is not particularly upset at all.


"Also, when we invaded one of the many reasons was that Saddam, 'used chemical weapons against his own people', do you question out motives when we use chemical weapons in Faluja, when the main victims were women and children, and anyone that would have been an, 'insurgent' would have pissed off ages ago?"

No, I don't question our motives. Whatever our foreign policies are they are designed to further the best interests of OUR western nations, to keep us safe from international idiots, scumbags and wasters, and to keep our western coffers topped up. That's good enough for me. That's what the vast majority of western voters elect their leaders to do, and so long as our leaders are on with those general goals, I don't see much reason to question them. And I don't shed any tears for international idiots, loony terrorists, and sympathiser sorts who are given a rough time by our security forces - Guantanamo Bay? It's too fucking good for 'em!

And why do middleclass sorts keep banging on about 'the motives for Invading Iraq'. Jeez, me 'an the guys on the Clapham omnibus don't fucking care! Maybe we just went to give Saddam a slap for ?dissing us?? So what? Some noncy middleclass types keep suggesting that it might have been about oil - shock, horror! The way those soft twats go on you might think that they personally don't need oil for their cars, their plastics, their medicines, their cosmetics and the umpteen other items that feature in their everyday lives. They?re just talking bollocks, just being perverse. If they don?t like our western way of life, our capitalist, consumerist, society, why don?t they just fuck off to the Kalahari Desert and show some pretentious solidarity with the fucking Bushmen, there? We won?t miss them and there are umpteen zillion third world types who would literally swim the frigging Straits of Gibraltar to take their place.


Officer Dibble

Saddam came to power using mass murder and held onto power by the same and it wasn't just the Shia & the Kurds who felt his wrath,
plenty of innocent Sunnis who opposed his methods met the same

The sooner they lop of his head the better.

What I find so farcical is the West sprouting this message of Iraq is to become a democracy.Any political party/people that hold 60 percent of the vote like the Shia and has a slight leaning to religion is never going to settle for anything other than a theocracy

Sooner or later IRAQ it will be a theocracy similar to IRAN IMHO

cheers
B....OZ

No one has ever had the high moral ground IMHO

The US in the first gulf war(seemingly justified) rescued Kuwait but left its Shia Allies at the mercy of Saddam because helping them wasn't a U.N. Goal

Quite simply one of the biggest blunders/callous actions I've ever seen
but spoke volumes about what the true goals of the US were all about

Perpetual War to feed the war machine that is the US economy

Notice in times of crisis the US goverment can get as much money as its likes from the Congress but in peaceful times its hauled over the coals about its spending

cheers
B....OZ

Who first used gas in Iraq? The Brits/Churchill.
But I suppose I'm middle-class so I would say something like that wouldn't I?

Mart

Perhaps he did, but we have to remember that possibly the worst tyrannt in history, Joseph Stalin, was a welcome ally of ours. I do not find Saddam anything like as odious as Robert Mugabe yet no military action is taken against him. Iraq is virtually impossible to rule and Saddam did it reasonably successfully. He certainly was not a religious maniac, unlike some other Middle Eastern rulers, afterall his deputy, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. And what happened to him, incidentally?