The Sanctions have been imposed since the end of the warso the UN has had a legitimate gripe since then. So what, the sanctions have most likely killed many more than a war would have. What does that matter.
Edit: Sorry fella - this is a cuddly message board. We should agree to disagree.
(,
Tue 18 Feb 2003, 12:56,
archived)
Edit: Sorry fella - this is a cuddly message board. We should agree to disagree.
It matters a lot.They estimate half a million have died as a direct result of sanctions. Now who do you think is the crueller and more deserving of being removed for the sake of "liberation". Saddam or the US administration?
edit: agreed, but I still find it abhorrent that anyone can support the US agenda in this case.
(edit: agreed, but I still find it abhorrent that anyone can support the US agenda in this case.
.spanky is singing "PEANUTS!",
Tue 18 Feb 2003, 13:00,
archived)
So it's right because this piece of paper says it is?Bollocks to that - in the end, it's not countries that vote at the UN, it's a single guy in a grey suit voting "yes", "no" or "abstain". They vote the way they are directed by their respective leader.
If you want to look for a national leader with a criminal past, who has signed death warrants for his own citizens, who has a nuculur(sic) arsenal, a country with plenty of Anthrax (recently used in attacks on it's own citizens) - a history of chemical weapons use, look no further than the good ol' US of A.
(If you want to look for a national leader with a criminal past, who has signed death warrants for his own citizens, who has a nuculur(sic) arsenal, a country with plenty of Anthrax (recently used in attacks on it's own citizens) - a history of chemical weapons use, look no further than the good ol' US of A.
gfreeman is only here for the beer,
Tue 18 Feb 2003, 13:05,
archived)