The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is an often repeated lie so please allow my to despell this stupidity with a few facts.

Blix disagrees with your allegations. He reported to have found no CBN weapons in Iraq.

[DuncanK]

He didn't disagree that they were hiding them. Just that they didn't find any. Big difference.

[Urban Ranger]

He disagrees with the allegations that Iraq is having CBN weapons because there is no evidence for it.

[DuncanK]

UR,

I don't think so. He may believe there is not proof. But unlike some people here, he's not assuming they don't have the weapons.

[Velociryx]

...and in fact, SAYS that, in his latest report.

-=Vel=-

[Iron Chancellor]

Originally posted by Agathon
The truth is that Bush is incompetent. In Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia and France (and most other countries I'll bet) the US is seen as the biggest threat to world peace, ahead of Iraq and North Korea! These aren't the opinions of leftist radicals; we are talking about the views of ordinary middle-of-the-road people here. This is all the more galling since Clinton managed a fairly unilateralist policy without creating too much of a stir - Gore would have done it just as easily. Madeleine Albright now looks like a diplomatic genius in comparison (and she wasn't really - she was just pragmatic). Again, The Bush administration is just incompetent.

Let's think this through:
Iraq is a dictatorship with a brutal regime that represents 20% of the populace and regularly commits genocide, assassination, imprisonment, and abductions.
An historical example:
Adolf Hitler seized control in a coup, implemented a brutal regime that represented a minority of the population (Yes, they were Germans, but the Nazi party had something like 20-35% of the seats in Reichkanzlerei). He committed genocide, assassination, imprisonment, and abductions before he even seized Austria. Economic sanctions against him were not enforced. No one gave a damn. He annexed Sudetenland. Chamberlain declared he had acheived "peace in our time."
Look just a little familiar to you?

Economic sanctions never work, as they merely starve the populace and make it easier for a dictator to repress his people. Look at Saddam, do you think he doesn't have enough to eat or do? Economic sanctions punish the people for the crimes of their "leaders," and do more to hurt the US' opinion than anything else.

Clintonist unilateralism got us 9/11. When the embassies were blown up in Kenya and Tanzania, what was his response? Fire a few cruise missiles, watch the ratings soar and hope no one attacks again. USS Cole exploads, repeat. CLINTON BOMBED A PHARMACEUTICALS FACTORY! If he had bothered to zip his pants up and do something effective, he might have put a stop to this before it got worse.

Hmm, our "American Imperialism" saved Europe, and rebuilt it, and gave it democracy and the free market in place of totalitarian communism. I think Europe has forgotten why it is so prosperous. It isn't due to their efforts. Without US aid, most of Europe would now look like Russia and the Ukraine, or Bulgaria and Romania.

How many civilians will die in a US attack? I don't know. But how many will die due to ineffective sanctions which cause famine and disease, or be abducted because they are not in line with government views? The US fouled up in supporting him. It's time we set things straight.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DuncanK
UR,

I don't think so. He may believe there is not proof. But unlike some people here, he's not assuming they don't have the weapons.

Which, again, is not the point. Duh, Saddam is a dictator, he had used those weapons before, back when he was a "good guy", or better put, when he was on of those allies no one was proud of but which were thought to be necessary to fight a greater evil (=Iran). It's well possible that Saddam has weapons, but there is no proof. In a trial you also have to proof that someone is guilty and the whole proof in this case is very thin. The case would be closed due to lack of evidence before any serious court. I haven't seen anyone here who denies that it's well possible that Saddam got those weapons. For my part, I think setting up 1441 in the first place was already bad (because a war against Iraq will always have more negative than positive effects and because the threat by Saddam has been classified as "extremely low as long as not attacked" by the CIA 1 or 2 years ago)), but OK, here it is now, so when there is proof (i.e. something has been found during the inspections and Blix stating that), we can talk. Before that happens, there's no reason to put in doubt the future of UNO or NATO just because Bush&Co. want this war so badly.
And about your other post:

Nations were never meant to abandon their sovereignty to the UN.

Yet the Iraq should do so? The inspections are actually abandoning part of the sovereignity. The whole situation reminds me to Austria's demands towards Serbia after the murder on the prince in Sarajevo - you know what was the outcome.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Which, again, is not the point.

Yes it is. What do you think the inspectors are looking for? What do you think resolution 1441 is for?

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Yet the Iraq should do so? The inspections are actually abandoning part of the sovereignity. The whole situation reminds me to Austria's demands towards Serbia after the murder on the prince in Sarajevo - you know what was the outcome.

Your apologies for Iraq are just bothersome.