News Will France Successfully Rescue Their Hostages?

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?

Care to answer the question?

 

[Mercator]

OK, I'll answer the question, I was born in Belgium ,I am living abroad for many many years now and I have no clue what the position of "my country" is. It is totally irrelevant, not only because of the size of Belgium, but also in this discussion. Now it's my turn, answer my question. I would like to see what twisted logic you will use to state that the Iraqi invasion was a move against terrorism AND a humanitarian action. Of course this is a fallacy of limited choices, because in reality it was neither of both, so you are free to coem up with as many reasons as you like, just like your president.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Irrelevant? Hardly.

I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning.

So I should ask, what was France's STATED solution to ending the sanctions? And "I dunno" is not really a viable answer to the question.

I would like to see what twisted logic you will use to state that the Iraqi invasion was a move against terrorism AND a humanitarian action.

Terrorism: Saddam an admitted supporter of terrorism. Existence of WMDs unknown, but Saddam refused to cooperate in establishing their destruction. Saddam in violation of numerous UN resolutions. Invasion settles the question.

Humanitarian. Saddam vicious killer. Sanctions kill children. Saddam now in jail. Sanctions over.

There is nothing mutually exclusive in the two responses.

 

[Mercator]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained. If you want to know the details, read Blix's book. There were no WMD in Iraq (the last US supply offered with compliments of Mr. Rumsfeld were used up), Saddam's reign was on it's knees and despite his defiant rethoric he was complying with the UN resolutions. Everybody in Europe with open eyes and mind knew this. We told you but you did not listen. With a good reason. Personaly I have supervised tons of weapons, steel, chemicals and other toys being shipped into Iraq. I talked to Tarek Aziz, not an Islamic radical, but a Christian who believed, like most of the governments in the West that Iraq was the answer to the radicalisation of Islam in the middle east and particularly in Iran. A lot of the toys came from the US (yes, we also shipped German tanks and French planes) It stopped after the first gulf war. By 2003 it was all outdated. The US waited until they knew for sure that Saddam, whom they installed in the first place, was powerless and then they attacked. All you had to do was wait for the right occasion to remove your puppet from power. Clinton knew this, but Mr. W rong chose to act before the spoils of the sanctions were distributed and take the biggest part of the cake for himself. Problem is that the American taxpayer has to pay for most of his adventures, because the Iraqi people (surpirse, surprise) are not so co-operative as to hand over their black gold without a fight. Don't use the humanitarian argument because when Saddam used chemical weapons against his people, they were SUPPLIED BY THE US. The chemical attacks and most of the brutalities you cite date from the time that YOU supplied Saddam. That may be a triviality to you, but most of the world knows this and wonders how you can be so cynical.
So let me recapitulate: you want me to believe that the same guy (Rumsfeld) who supplied the terrible chemical weapons to Saddam in order to wipe out the "Islamic danger" coming from Iran and watched the horrible results of it without a word of dissaproval, later wanted to attack his old friend for humanitarian reasons? On top of this you only want me to believe this when your first argument, that Iraq was a terrorist threat (which it obviously WAS not, but may now become one THANKS to your invasion) has not really the desired effect? What else? Elton John does not like men?

 

[studentx]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained. If you want to know the details, read Blix's book. There were no WMD in Iraq (the last US supply offered with compliments of Mr. Rumsfeld were used up), Saddam's reign was on it's knees and despite his defiant rethoric he was complying with the UN resolutions. Everybody in Europe with open eyes and mind knew this. We told you but you did not listen. With a good reason. Personaly I have supervised tons of weapons, steel, chemicals and other toys being shipped into Iraq. I talked to Tarek Aziz, not an Islamic radical, but a Christian who believed, like most of the governments in the West that Iraq was the answer to the radicalisation of Islam in the middle east and particularly in Iran. A lot of the toys came from the US (yes, we also shipped German tanks and French planes) It stopped after the first gulf war. By 2003 it was all outdated. The US waited until they knew for sure that Saddam, whom they installed in the first place, was powerless and then they attacked. All you had to do was wait for the right occasion to remove your puppet from power. Clinton knew this, but Mr. W rong chose to act before the spoils of the sanctions were distributed and take the biggest part of the cake for himself. Problem is that the American taxpayer has to pay for most of his adventures, because the Iraqi people (surpirse, surprise) are not so co-operative as to hand over their black gold without a fight. Don't use the humanitarian argument because when Saddam used chemical weapons against his people, they were SUPPLIED BY THE US. The chemical attacks and most of the brutalities you cite date from the time that YOU supplied Saddam. That may be a triviality to you, but most of the world knows this and wonders how you can be so cynical.
So let me recapitulate: you want me to believe that the same guy (Rumsfeld) who supplied the terrible chemical weapons to Saddam in order to wipe out the "Islamic danger" coming from Iran and watched the horrible results of it without a word of dissaproval, later wanted to attack his old friend for humanitarian reasons? On top of this you only want me to believe this when your first argument, that Iraq was a terrorist threat (which it obviously WAS not, but may now become one THANKS to your invasion) has not really the desired effect? What else? Elton John does not like men?

This is why i said, get over your hatred and be constructive.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained.

First of all, I have already explained our attack on Iraq. Now for those that criticize our actions, I want to know what their plan was to end the sanctions.

And I hardly consider a situation where UN resolutions are being broken and sanctions are killing tens of thousands "contained."

And yes, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions.

And do you have a credible source showing that Rumsfeld supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. This article from The Guardian makes no mention of such an exchange, and The Guardian is no friend of Rumsfeld.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

So let's see the evidence.

You trump up France's and Bill Clinton's means of handling Iraq. Given the incredible loss of life that occurred because of Saddam's pogrom against the Kurds and Shi'ias and the sanctions, what did they do in the eight years prior to Bush' presidency to put an end to it?

 

[Adam]

Plan to end sanctions:
1) The USA ceases it's persecution of the Iraqi people through its influence in the UN.
...

 

[Adam]

Some information about the sanctions:
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/lift/2003/0519sanctiongame.htm

 

[JohnDubYa]

Regarding Resolution 661:

"The sanctions committee was chaired at the beginning of 2004 by the Ambassador of Romania, with the delegations of the Philippines and Pakistan providing vice chairmen."

Your first resource is useless. Not only is it highly biased, but it provides no references and the author does not appear to have worthy credentials.

My understanding of the sanctions is that they were largely imposed by the UN as a means of stopping the US from continuing its attack on Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War. (Maybe I'm wrongm, however.) I do know that Bush wanted to end the sanctions as quickly as possible after the invasion, but the European nations wanted to keep them until they had settled the WMD question. That hardly sounds like the sanctions were instigated solely by the US.

But let's suppose that the sanctions were all due to the US. Did France call for an ending of the sanctions? What about Germany? Why didn't Clinton do something to end the sanctions in the eight years he was president?

 

[JohnDubYa]

I meant your second reference, that is, the YellowTimes piece.

 

[Adam]

Now that is an ad hominem. Rather than discuss the material he wrote, you focus on his credentials, as though that matters.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I focused on his credentials because he provided no references and he writes for a biased news source! When an author provides no references and appears to have a political bent, his credentials are all he has. (I'm not saying that credentials alone are worth much, but at least a credible source is better than no source at all.)

 

[Mercator]

Student, in stead of AGAIN accusing me of hatred, try some argumentation. You read something you don't like and then it's hatred?