Explain this, anti war people

[VinceZeb]

This is going to be in the current issue of Time, so you people that want to whine about sources have it right in front of you on Tuesday or whever you get it:

As one former senior Administration official puts it: "The eureka moment [in deciding to remove Saddam] was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists’] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned. So we must act pre-emptively to ensure that those that have the capability aren’t allowed to proliferate it." One advisor to the president, report Elliott and Carney, went as far as to say that Bush thinks Saddam is insane. "If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman. Depending on the sanity of Saddam is not an option."

I would like to see with one of you deal with this situation. And then explain how we should deal with this. I am all eyes.

[Protoclown]

I would go so far as to say that Bush is insane.

[Anonymous]

"If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman."
So we'll eliminate that middle-man.



THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR BOMBS.

[VinceZeb]

Now, if anyone with a hint of maturity would like to respond on how we should deal with the situation, please do so.

[ranxer]

the eureka moment was when they THOUGHT they had enough
dirt on hussein to be able to use it as an excuse to destabalize the region, effect corporate will on mideast oil, AND create massive new revenues for the suppliers of the war machine $$ . among other reasons.. this is perfect for the fascists for it maintains a spin hole for a continuous 'war on terror'

i have to say they are doing a tremendous amount of omition and spin to maintain the facade..

'we are going to iraq feed starving people', haha, yea those people that are starving from OUR SANCTIONS?!

http://ericblumrich.com/antiwar2.html

[James]

I'd say... Vinnie is a waste of breath and he is a sheeple! :Vince

[theapportioner]

"The eureka moment [in deciding to remove Saddam] was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists’] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned.

The meaning is obvious. Only an intellectual child would not be able to figure it out -- the fight against Islamist militancy has been co-opted by the neoconservative (perhaps we should call it neoimperialist?) agenda and a desire by some to settle the 'unfinished business' that is Iraq. An excuse.

[Protoclown]

I'd love to know what you're asking us to "deal with" exactly. As near as I can tell, that quote you posted is nothing but conjecture anyway. You know, seeing as how we still have not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Saddam even HAS any weapons of mass destruction.

[VinceZeb]

ranxer, those people are not starving from our sanctions. Our sancations protect the kurds from extermination.

Saddam has a food for oil agreement. Now, reports are saying that his sons run the black market on the food that is brought in. And please, explain how he gets all those weapons and his nice bunkers and presidental palaces. He uses his primary resource, OIL, to pay for those palaces instead of using the food to feed his people.

You can get the reports on this information from a simple Lexus/Nexus search.

[VinceZeb]

You have recieved and have the information that Bush has. You know that if terrorists get a hold of WMD, they will not hesitate to use them. You know Saddam has been perusing them for years now. You know exactly that is being said in this article, just like Bush does. How do we go about solving this problem. How do we handle this.

[Protoclown]

I think you should "deal with" the fact that you've given us nothing to "deal with". :(

[kellychaos]

You know, seeing as how we still have not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Saddam even HAS any weapons of mass destruction.

He DOES have a lot more than he's reported to the U.N., though. :/ Doesn't bode very well toward his credibility at this point. At the same time, I agree with you that the U.S. intelligence agencies have way overexaggerated the WMD case ... well, I believe it at this point anyway.

[VinceZeb]

You have the information the president has, which he gives to the people. Which Powell gave to the U.N. You know from your intelligence that Saddam has been in business trying to sell off WMD. You know he is developing nukes. You know he will use them or sell them to whoever buys. What, as acting Commander in Chief, do you do about the situation? Since everyone is contempt with aruging with what Bush is doing wrong, why doesnt everyone tell us what they would do that is so much more efficent and better.

[Bennett]

Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Osama Bin Laden? With Baghdad in flames, don't you think that Saddam would be able to slip away from us like Bin Laden did? Don't you think this situation, where we have absolutely no idea where he could be and what he has taken with him is potentially much more dangerous than peacefully searching for weapons and keeping him in check? We all know that an animal is much more dangerous when cornered...
but oh yeah, this isn't about the weapons, it's about liberating the Iraqis...

[kellychaos]

Don't you think this situation, where we have absolutely no idea where he could be and what he has taken with him is potentially much more dangerous than peacefully searching for weapons and keeping him in check? ..

My opinion is that they're probably more worried about fighting the war per SOP and based on the hard evidence/intelligence that they DO have rather than on anything speculative that he MIGHT have. That's just me thinkin', though. Additionally, he's just a man. Know what I mean? If they shut all he has (militarily) down, who really cares if he limps off to parts unknown with his tail between his legs? Granted, it would be nice and gratifying to catch him, but what would be the major difference if they didn't? :/

[Bennett]

What I'm saying is that if he eludes the U.S. even for a short time, I personally think that there is a greater risk of him sharing whatever weapons or technology that he has with terrorist groups. The fact of it is, the Iraqi gov't wouldn't, likely couldn't launch an attack on the U.S. Terrorism doesn't work well from such a high level. The danger with Saddam is that he might provide terrorists with weapons or technology. If he escapes and we can't find him, it makes him much more dangerous (I believe), especially if he manages to smuggle dangerous weapons.

If he has the capabilities, weapons of mass destruction are much more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists is we have no idea where Saddam is. Of course, he could be blown to bits by now.

The terrorist of 9/11 were just men armed with box cutters, and they did more damage to the U.S. than the Iraqi military has ever managed to do.

[mburbank]

Okay, IF I accepeted any of your points, which I don't, the same "If he gets them he might give them" argument applies to:
Iran
N. Korea
Pakistan (Has them, already gave important info to N.Korea, their secret service is full of islamists with close connections to Al Quaeda and Taliban)
Saudi Arabia(wants them, funds various terror groups)
India (has them, ready to use them on Pakistan, might give them to Hindu Seperatists to defer blame)
Egypt (Probably has them,)
France(has them, VERY angry about 'Freedom Fries')
About a dozen small ex-soviet states currently desperatley in need of cash and unable to pay their soldiers or nuclkear scientists.
etc.
etc.
etc.

In fact, since the future is unknown, even after you "Deal" with all of the above, an "If he gets them he might give them" scenario (and in his adress to the nation, W. used the figure "Within five years" that could apply to about half the world.

If you are suggesting an all out play for world domination, put your cards on the table. My principle problem with the administration is that they refuse to even look at where our current actions lead. My God, they can't even get Turkey, our ally, to commit to staying out of Northern Iraq! We can barely secure Kahbul!

Seriously, play out for me your foreign policy for the five years following the overthrow of Iraq, just in basic ball park terms. I know in the wizard of Oz after Dorothy Kills the Witch the guards all love her, but this isn't Oz.

[VinceZeb]

You avoided the question and are making people equal that are not, Max. Iraqi has been proven to want to destroy us, and are developing ways possible. A former UN weapons inspector was on a lot of radio shows today, on local ones here in St. L and on national shows and he said the truth: They want to kill us. Saddam will sell weapons to kill us in a moment. He IS developing weapons. Islamic fundalmentlistic jihadist want to destroy Western civilization and white people. This is a weapons inspector, sir. You avoid the questions at hand. We know Iraq wants to destroy us, we can prevent it. how do we do it?

[mburbank]

That was cute, the way you finally spoke respectfully. It totally makes me forget what an air headed pussy I am, how you pity my children and your speculations regarding my wifes sexuality. I'll play though.

Ritter is a weapons inspector. Blix is a weapons inspector. Who is this weapons inspector? He IS developing weapons? This may well turn out to be true, but so fr their is zero proof. Sadam will sell weapons... IF he has any we have certainly provided a motivation he lacked to sell them, which even we don't claim he's done to date. If you are going to assume for sure he would, then you have to ascribe the same possability to many of the states on my list, most of whom like us less daily because of our current pre-emption policy.

I'm not at all ignoring your question. I'm asking you to follow through on it. Should Bush personally determine since that's his criteria that any of thee other countries (and Iran certainly has all the qulaities you ascribed to Iraq, North Korea has many of them, Pakistan has some of them and as of this morning we are saying so does Russia), is this to be our policy? If at the executive level a determintion is made that these countries wish us Ill and might work with terrorists within five years, will we then invade?

When has Iraq been proven to want to destroy us?

Add to this the following. On Osama Bin Laden's wish list right after wanting to smash into the twin towers was the goal of dragging the US into a middle eastern war. Even in his most recent speech, Osama called saddam an 'infidel' which is kind of strong language to a fundamentalist. Osama is still at large, and we've gone to war with the most secular non -Israeli government in the Gulf. Who's the big winner here?

[VinceZeb]

I never said anything about your wife's sexuality. Sorry, liar, you are trying to make things appear out of thin air. But it's about time you learned to act civil.

There is a difference between not liking us and wanting to destroy us. Iran hasnt talked about killing us, even though Iran will reform itself. N. Korea is starting to talk shit, but it seems that Japan will start the war with them first. N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

[sspadowsky]

You've obviously got a firm grasp on world affairs, Vince, and you seem ready to "go inthere and take care of business," as so many pro-war people are wont to say. Your country needs a gung-ho man like you. Get your thinner, healthier body into the nearest recruiting office you can find. I'm originally from St. Louis too, so I can even give you directions.
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[VinceZeb]

Thanks for contributing nothing to the argument as per usual. Why dont you try to argue the points and answer the question of what you would do in Bush's situation from his eureka moment with Saddam and quit talking shit?

Yes, I am thinner and healthier than I have ever been, are you jealous or something? Sorry some of us are able to overcome obstacles and make it in a free society without wanting the govt to help out.

[Protoclown]

N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS WHAT WAR IS ALL ABOUT!!!!

[sspadowsky]

No need. Any time I bring up points, you simply ignore them. Besides, I think Max is doing a nice job of covering all the bases.

You spout the same comic-book rhetoric ("evil," "madman," etc.) that I hear our idiot president blathering every time he comes on the TV.

There is a difference between not liking us and wanting to destroy us. Iran hasnt talked about killing us, even though Iran will reform itself. N. Korea is starting to talk shit, but it seems that Japan will start the war with them first. N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

Anyone who simplifies world affairs to this extent is a fucking moron, and I will treat them as such.
________
BOX VAPORIZER (http://vaporizer.org)

[VinceZeb]

Yes, it is. Your point? War is about killing creatures and breaking things. That is one of those extreme oversimplifications I just seem to make. We don't look at the sights during war. We don't do zen meditation during a war. We have weapons and soilders that are created and trained to kill enemy combatants and blow up their equipment and buildings.

In your opinion, what is war about? In the simplest terms of what war is, what is war and battle about? How is a war supposed to be done, properly, in your opinion?

[VinceZeb]

Ok sspadowsky, please explain to me how I am a moron? Also explain to me how you would handle N. Korea if such a situation such as I described would, God forbid, happen.

So, my comic book rhetoric bothers you? Why? Was Hitler in your opinion evil and a madman? What about Stalin, who murdered tens of millions? Was Pol Pot an insane madman, or was he just misunderstood? Was Tojo of the imperialistic Japan a madman for being under a govt that slaughtered millions of Chinese so the Japanese would start their empire of the sun and eliminate the "unpure" races, such as Germany tried to do with the Jews?

Please enlighten my idiotic ass about world diplomacy. I am all ears. And, since you do not keep thinking you are proclaiming the truth, I go after your points constantly. You are the one that does not go after mine.

You have the floor. Convince me I am wrong.

[Protoclown]

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie...please! You missed my point entirely! I'm not taking up issue with the fact that war involves killing other people. Of course that is what happens in a war, I think we all understand that.

What I found so simultaneously amusing and disturbing about your statement is the bit that I highlighted (go back and look). I found it rather humerous that you made a point to mention that the enemy soldiers would be "sent to Hell". It's your attitude about it that I find so funny.

Why would we send them to HELL, specifically? Because they stand against the US they can't possibly go to heaven? Or is it because they as a nation are nothing more than a bunch of godless heathens?

[VinceZeb]

I say Hell because N. Korea is a communist nation, and what is the state religion of communist states? ATHEISM. So the shoe fits. And I also use Hell just as a general term for where I wish people who fight to keep people starving and enslaved should go after hopefully meeting a cruel and excruciating death. But since I am not the end-all be-all of the state of men's souls, it isn't my decision where they go.

[sspadowsky]

Hussein is not anywhere near the same league as Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, so let's just cut out that bullshit comparison, OK? I'm going to try to pound this through your thick fucking skull one more time: I do not like Hussein. I do not support him. Are we crystal fucking clear on this now? We are being lied to about why we're there. He's a bad guy, to be sure, but until he's overrun more countries than Kuwait, don't put him in the same league as Hitler or Stalin. And before you start with "That's what we're stopping him from doing," I will pre-emptively tell you you're full of shit. Hussein doesn't have the means for such an undertaking.

And you can try to make all the neat little historical references you want to make yourself sound intelligent, but that statement I previously cited is quite telling, isn't it?

See, I'm not arrogant enough to say, "We need to do X, and we will achieve the desired result." What I DO know is that your method ain't the right one. Your "kill-'em-all" attitude is a fuckin' outdated macho impulse, it's tired, it's fuckin' annoying, and it only serves to make you look like the ill-informed jackass that you are. If you're so certain that we need to deal with everyone by force, then by all means, drag your happy ass to a Marine Corps recruiting station. I'm sure they'd love to have you on board.
________
Head shop (http://headshop.net/)

[VinceZeb]

Marine Core would not have me right now. Wouldnt pass their physical.

Show me where I am full of shit about Saddam. Did Hitler all of a sudden have tons of weapons and generals that would die for his cause appear after praying for them one day? No, they appeared after time. The same types of restrictions on Saddam were like the same ones that were on Germany after WWI. Hitler went ahead and kept building his war machines. No one stopped him. He kept doing what he wanted to build up the SS, and no one stopped him. We finally tried after he mass murdering had begun.


So, how do you think we should stop Saddam? Now, please tell me how. But, here is what we can work out. I'd like to go out and get a few Iraqi citizens that have lived under Saddam's regime. Ya know, the ones who have limbs torn off, were hung upside during their menstrual cycles to be humiliated, the children who are now blind because their parents dissented, all that good stuff. Now, I want you to go up to them and tell them that Bush is an evil imperalistic war monger and that we should have had more inspections and that this war is wrong and unjust. Please have a video camera present and with a lot of video tape. The hiliarity would then ensue.

Then, go to a group of troops and tell them that they are fighting an unjust war. Tell the troops that saw the murdered, the raped, the muliated, the orphaned, the starved. Make sure you start this as soon as they land back from Iraq. Bring that same camera. Hilarity ensues again.

And since our president is an idiot, tell us how you would handle the whole situation, since our Harvard and Yale educated president is an idiot and you are a supreme intelligence. I would honest-to-God like to hear how YOU would handle this whole situation.

[mburbank]

Excuse me, Vincey-poo, but YOU are the Liar and if I'm not mistaken and those are your pants, they appear to be in flames. Shame on you.
You implied that my lovely wife would not be satisfied until she'd had a bvisit from you. We're you planning on selling her 'avon' during this visit? I THINK NOT, YOU CAD!

You telling me to be civil is like Jeffrey Dahmer telling me to eat less meat.

"Iran hasnt talked about killing us, even though Iran will reform itself. N. Korea is starting to talk shit, but it seems that Japan will start the war with them first. N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that."

Laws. Iran spent years talking about destroying us. I wasn't aware there was a statute of limmitations on threats of annihilation. "Iran WILL reform itself" Okay, thanks, Kreskin. There is a reformist movement in Iran. I wish it well. But do you have a crystal ball? How do you know Saddam won't have a stroke in the next ten minutes and Iraq become a peaceful Utopia without our intervention? You don't. Japan? Again, you must get that newspaper that comes several weeks ahead of the date. "Simple as that" The only thing simple here is you. What's your strategy exactly for 'sending a lot of Koreans to hell' say before they use one of there three nuclear weapons as of this writting to do the same to South Korea or Japan or San Francisco?

"Yes, I am thinner and healthier than I have ever been, are you jealous or something?"

Not jealous. HOT. Nothing gives the fine folk at I-mockery a boner like reading someones post about what great shape they're in. Mention it some more, seriously, I'm more convinced every time you type the words, you Glistening Adonis.

"War is about killing creatures and breaking things. That is one of those extreme oversimplifications I just seem to make. We don't look at the sights during war. We don't do zen meditation during a war. We have weapons and soilders that are created and trained to kill enemy combatants and blow up their equipment and buildings. "

Seen a lot of action, there, Vince? Combat vet, purple heart, that sort of thing? Know what it's like to kill someone, or are you just kind of guessing what it's like? Or are you just some dick who's seen a bunch of action movies and played some great video games, tough guy? What exactly do you know about War that amounts to shit?

What is War about? War is about Failure. Failure to find a way to stop the killing of creatures and breaking of things. War, especially whn the to sides are completely unmatched, is easy. Easy for the commander in chief, anyway. Not so easy for the Men and Women on the battlefield who might wake up to find tht killing creatures and breaking things does some seriously bad shit to you even if you do all the killing and breaking.

And don't give me any bullshit about Hitler, 'cause this ain't that, and that could have been avoided if World War One hadn't been settled so selfishly, and World War One wouldn't have needed to happen if a bunch of puffed up self important sons of bitches who thought war was 'as simple as that' hadn't thought killing almost all of Europes young men might be a fun way to settle some scores. If we worked for peace with half the money and attention we bring to war, maybe we could avoid Killing and Breaking. What do you know about suffering, exactly, Mr. Nuclear Submarine? You were ready to drive roofing nails into the heads of chinese kidnappers but your willing to send how many Koreans to hell?

I don't give a little tin shit if your pro or anti war, but if you think it can't be avoided you better take it seriously becuase war is not parcheesi, Rambo, and if you ask anyone who went to Vietnam you'll find out the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' can't always tell one frpom the other. Anyone who's pro war and doesn't show more concern than you is a rabid animal. I know career soldiers and none of them, none of them talk the line of shit you do. Civil my big red ass, you don't know what the word means. Pol Pot, how fucking dare you? You Know a lot about Cambodia. Come to Lowell, ask some survivors who put Pol Pot in the drivers seat, ask them who bombed the shit out of their country, illegally, and lied about it and destabalized them to the point that a monster like Pol Pot could get where he got, ask them which shinbing light of democracy had offcial relations with the K'mer Rouge. Ask some surviving Jews which country refused Jewish refugees and sent them back to Germany. I think you'll find it's the same country that's about to start making asylum seekers sit in a jail cell while they wait for their paperwork. How long? Who knows? Since they won't have access to lawyers, it's hard to say. Suppose we'd put up some serious objections when Hitler first came to power and cut off trade with germany? Suppose we'd gotten together with other nations and isolated Germany and made it easy for Jews to emigrate? How many might have lived then? I'm not saying I'm not grateful, because I am. I'm not saying I'm not proud of what America did in WWII because I am. But you want to know how much prouder I'd be if we'd done everything we could do short of war ten years before the war? Do you know anything about how Hitler came to power? Or do you just say the magic word "HITLER!" and thereby justify war?

IMAGINE my shock to find that you, like Naldo, know who's going to hell. Tell me, as we take care of them, 'as simple as that', how do you propse to srt the suffering from the torturers? Since military service in North Korea is compulsary? I'm sure your heart bleeds for the literal hell they live in now. How quaint that your idea of a solution is to take those same people and send a large chunk of them to figurative hell.

As simple as that.

What a fucking sheeple.

[mburbank]

Didn't you say you were in college aadmissions? Do you think for a nano second Bush would have gotten into or graduated from either Harvard or Yale if he hadn't been a Bush?

[James]

Holy shit. Vinnie's gonna be walking quite funny from the huge new asshole Max just tore him. :rock

[sspadowsky]

Marine Core would not have me right now. Wouldnt pass their physical.

They'd probably not have you just because you can't spell "Corps."

Hitler wasn't under the thumb of the world's super-powers for 12 years while trying to rebuild the Wermacht. Germany had been operating under the provisions of the Versailles treaty for over ten years before Hitler came into power, their entire nation was in shambles, and most of Europe had simply written them off as being no longer dangerous.

That is not the case with Iraq. Any time Hussein has gotten a little out of line, bombs started falling on Baghdad. Get it? I need not even mention the No-Fly zones that have been pretty strictly enforced. Hitler was a kid in a candy store. Hussein is a kid in a looted and burned candy store with a shitload of armed guards and security cameras watching his every move.

Now, for your other vitriolic bullshit: I have no beef with our troops. I respect them immensely, and I want them to get home safely.

Ya know, the ones who have limbs torn off, were hung upside during their menstrual cycles to be humiliated, the children who are now blind because their parents dissented, all that good stuff.

I'd like to know where you got this stuff. Not saying it didn't happen. Besides, I've never said that Hussein wasn't a threat to his own people. I said he's not a threat to the US. Because, you know... HE'S NOT.

As for how I'd handle it? Just like Kissinger did in 1973. I'd have the CIA assassinate him.

By the way, I'm really tired of hearing about Bush's fuckin' education. George Carlin dropped out of school after 9th grade, and he'd mop the floor with Bush in a debate. I know people with Master's Degrees that are barely competent enough to tie their own shoes. Where you went to college, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't mean shit. All these little distinctions people so dearly love to tout, they don't mean a fuckin' thing. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't change the fact that he's an evil fuck.
________
Herbal vaporizer (http://herbalvaporizers.info)

[kellychaos]

Suppose we'd put up some serious objections when Hitler first came to power and cut off trade with germany? Suppose we'd gotten together with other nations and isolated Germany and made it easy for Jews to emigrate? How many might have lived then? I'm not saying I'm not grateful, because I am. I'm not saying I'm not proud of what America did in WWII because I am. But you want to know how much prouder I'd be if we'd done everything we could do short of war ten years before the war? Do you know anything about how Hitler came to power? Or do you just say the magic word "HITLER!" and thereby justify war?



I've seen many a documentary on the "History Channel" wherein several political scientists/historian theorize that World War I & II were, as far as Europe is concerned, part of the same war. The sanctions emposed on Austrian-German empire by the "Treaty of Versailles" were severe and left the area in an economic state many times worse than our American depression. It's no suprise that someone with the charisma of Hitler could come to power and inspire the kind of nationalism he did using his "stated" socialistic platform ... it was all about timing really. I'm not defending Hitler in any way but I must admit he was a shrewd politician that read the post World War I atmosphere expertly. It's just too bad he was an evil SOB in many other ways.

[ranxer]

vincez:
ranxer, those people are not starving from our sanctions. Our sancations protect the kurds from extermination.

that's a common myth among others and the bush regime would like you to believe that its because of saddam, but the fact is that the sanctions have actually strengthened saddams control on the country by forcing people to rely on him for food and medicine.
why don't we let the people have common medical supplies?
why do we limit things like eggs and pencils? why are so many dieing of malnutrition? some say its being captured by saddam and the black market.. sure Some is but the fact remains that there never has been enough common aid to stop a tremendous devastation of the iraqi people. this kind of blockage can be considered a siege mentality where the entire country is treated as an enemy.. this is just one of the Crimes against humanity that Bush I, Clinton, and now Bush II has been perpetrating on the Iraqi's thus the flag is burned in many countries in response.. NOT BECAUSE of so many other reasons people spout.

the sanctions have failed in almost every respect that was intended, why? have our administrations just been incredibly stupid? many see it as down right evil, i'm still not positive what was intended :/

one of the more stripped down descriptions of the sanctions can be found at...www.globalpolicy.org:
The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament, return of prisoners of war and other goals. The sanctions have remained in place ever since. The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power. Though the international community increasingly criticized the sanctions because of their harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and their lack of pressure on Hussein, the US and the UK have blocked many proposed reforms. A UN “Oil-for-Food Program,” started in late 1997, has offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continues. Several UN Secretary Generals have criticized the sanctions as a "blunt instrument" and UN agencies such as UNICEF have documented the heavy human cost, especially for children. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact and the Oil-for-Food Programme

a description i find more revealing is at:
www.iacenter.org/usplan.htm
On Thursday, August 12, UNICEF released a report detailing a two-fold increase for infant and child mortality in Iraq over the past decade. This adds to a litany of reports that have been released during this period detailing the dire health situation in Iraq. It is with these reports that a growing international anti-sanctions movement has demonstrated that the U.S.-led UN sanctions have caused massive destruction throughout Iraq--that they are, in fact, a weapon of mass destruction.

In the past nine years, over 1.7 million people in Iraq have died as a direct result of the sanctions. 250 die each day. Every child in Iraq suffers from some degree of malnutrition. A simple cut can lead to death because of contaminated water and lack of even the most basic medicine.

For the past nine years, it is the U.S. that has led the effort to continue the UN-imposed sanctions. This is not headline news. But this UNICEF report has been. Why is that? ...

just one of the many reasons my flag is upside down