u may find these links helpful:
www.endthewar.org
http://leb.net/iac/
www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm
www.feedmag.com/essay/es378_master.html
Results 1 to 20 of 47
I'm soon going to be doing a talk at school on the sanctions on Iraq and I personnally think that they are an out rage. In the talk in need to express differing views and have evidence etc. I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a useful website or give me some of their own opinions on the issue.
Many thanks for any help offered.
Life is a game that we play, that we never get out of alive.
u may find these links helpful:
www.endthewar.org
http://leb.net/iac/
www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm
www.feedmag.com/essay/es378_master.html
\"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how
amnesty is trying to take a particular stance on the sanctions placed on iraq THEREFORE you can check out just about any amnesty website for really good information. the general amnesty website is www.amnesty.org you can also check out www.amnesty.ca
also check out www.warchild.ca (a canadian organization that specifically deals with war-affected children -- of which iraq is a huge victim)
good luck . . .
if i think of anything else i will let you know
btw its too bad you're not talking about the situation in northern uganda because i know a lot more about what is going on there (although no sanctions are currently in place)
anyway i hope those sites are helpful
I AM THE PERFECT ME!
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15
The only charitable option for the Iraqi people would be the depostion of Saddam Hussein. The US is not the reason these people suffer, rather it is the maniacal undertakings of their dictator. Point your outrage towards him.
Che Guevara wannabe
Thanks very much for the ideas and website links that you have given me, ill follow them up in the next few days.
Life is a game that we play, that we never get out of alive.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes, the Iraqi people deserve a better leader than Saddam Hussein, but I don't know a single people that don't deserve a better leader. Over the last four years, only around $500 of food and medicine per person has entered the country. This is a country that used to import 70% of its food and all of it's medicine! These figures are probably even lower now due to war damage. Perhaps these sanctions would have the slightest bit of redeeming value if they had weakened Saddam Hussein, but they have done exactly the opposite. First, morally, the people now see the US as their oppressors, as before the implementation of the sanctions Iraq was one of the more prosperous developing countries, if not already in transition between developing and developed. The people are also physically dependent on the Iraqi government as they're essentially now the manager of oil for food deals. Although the Iraqi government's distribution of supplies has been described as "excellent" by UN observers, no doubt this would change very quickly if strong opposition returned against Saddam Hussein. Also, the people can't begin opposition in the first place if they're starved(or already dead from starvation) or diseased. And you may ask what motivation does the US have for doing this? Simple....as soon as Saddam croaks or they get rid of him, and they replace him with a puppet, a weak people will be that much easier to control while exploiting them and their countries resources. If the USA hadn't weakened Iraq with these murderous sanctions, the people might very well have risen up and toppled him, but then the US would have lost the opportunity to install a puppet leader.
are you aware of the fact that suddam husseing was accepted by america despite his human rights atrocities. the us was aware of suddam's antics for at least a decade before they took any action. and the leader is irrrelevant. the issue here is that the sanctions that the us are imposing are particularly paralying. suddam didn't choose to have these imposed on iraq although you are right his choice was to do things that would 'force' the us to enforce these sanctions. everyone has choices. the united states is the one we can argue with because they stilll have the choice of withdrawl.
what a horrible horrible statement you mad e guest
I AM THE PERFECT ME!
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15
I find any discussion of past (1980's) Us action regarding saddam impertinent to the current debate about Iraq. Its like saying that if you breakup with your girlfriend you're still 100 percent responsible for her emotional welfare.
Che Guevara wannabe
If you are against the events at the WTC then you should be against sanctions on Iraq.
The attack on the WTC was meant as an attack on the US infrastructure, but the terrorists saw it as inconsequential that there would be civilian losses, as they would be excusable with the damage done to the US.
The same attitude that these terrorists showed is shown by the US against Iraq. The US considers it justifiable that to attack Saddam they can act in a way that ends in the death of hordes of civilians, much more than died in the WTC.
You cannot claim the US actions on Iraq to be justifiable and also object to the WTC, unless you are to claim that only American live's have consequence.
If you want to claim that, feel free, just make sure people know exactly what you are saying by that, for I think they may want to know.
I dont think that killing people is justifiable, as you so disingeniously make it seem that I do, rather i feel that you leave no room for a solution. You say that the US should not impose sanctions on Iraq, thereby strenghthening the hand of the dictator, and at the same time you dont feel that the US should get rid of him lest they install a "puppet". What ends would this puppet serve? the imposition of the global capitalist system on iraq? The introduction of consumer goods, as well as the efficient distribution of food and medicine? Gee, how dastardly of the US government to want to do that!
In so far as our support for Iraq, while I do feel it is impertinent to the current discussion, let us tackle it now. The US support of Iraq in the war against Iran was based on the fact that Iran was the enemy of the US. At the time, Iraq had never stood against america. Iran on the other hand had been implicated in the embassy takeover and the assault on the peacekeeping barracks in lebanon. We did not instigate this war, saddam hussein was afraid that the shiite regime of iran would damage support rebellion against his sunni based regime. We simply worked against our enemy.
Che Guevara wannabe
im pretty sure that quite recently a guest (i think) posted an article explaining the impact in the past ten years of the Gulf war on the citizins. ive been looking around for it on the different parts of the board but cant find it. Do you think that someone could poin me int he right direction because i think that it may be useful to my speech.
Thanks.
Life is a game that we play, that we never get out of alive.
anybody??
Life is a game that we play, that we never get out of alive.
"In so far as our support for Iraq, while I do feel it is impertinent to the current discussion, let us tackle it now. The US support of Iraq in the war against Iran was based on the fact that Iran was the enemy of the US. At the time, Iraq had never stood against america. Iran on the other hand had been implicated in the embassy takeover and the assault on the peacekeeping barracks in lebanon. We did not instigate this war, saddam hussein was afraid that the shiite regime of iran would damage support rebellion against his sunni based regime. We simply worked against our enemy. "
-i'd like to respond to this nice little one-sided bit of information.
before there was the (i'll give this to you) shite regime that is still in power, there was another shite regime, that of the Shah of Iran. (those of you who i sent my editorial to have already heard this) this was a man who hunted down and killed anyone who apposed his corrupt government. the u.s. supported this man on its knees and vice versa. why? because of his oil. however when the current regime took power, (democraticly i might add) they stood up and where against the u.s. and his puppet- the Shah, basically they wanted to nationalize the country. (by the way "shah" means "king" ) this is why the u.s. turned to hussein and iraq, they wanted another friend to give them access to middle-eastern oil. ---(this is not to say i support the current iranian government, they lied to get the support of the people and then immediatly changed their actions) the truth is the only way they were able to brainwash the people was because of the Shah's curroptness and the u.s.'s support of his actions. this set a perfect stage for another power-hungry group to take over.
p.s.- what about the fact that the u.s. aided iraq in bombing CIVILIANS in iran and the Kurds of northern iraq. wasn't that wrong, no matter what the u.s. thought of Iran and Iraq?
\"One murder makes a villain...millions a hero. Numbers sanctify, my friend.\" -Charlie Chaplin
El Commandante,
I don't know which article you mean, for there are a lot of them, but you would probably find this one very interesting:
http://www.theprogressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
It's about the intentional destruction of the civilian water supply in Iraq during the war and how the sanctions are used to prevent the water supply from getting beck to pre-war condition.
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
This is the type of moral relativism that must give way to achieve any goal, be it politically oriented to the left or the right
"(this is not to say i support the current iranian government, they lied to get the support of the people and then immediatly changed their actions)" -pce
Thats right, most people here probably do not support the current iranian regime, and so you must understand that despite american intentions, america was the "good guy". Furthermore any insightful look at the iranian revolution must seek out the causes of the revolution. For the Ayatollah and other iranian clerics who fermented and rode the waves of revolt the main issue was not class struggle or equality and democracy but rather westernization. They felt that the shah's attempts to westernize iran were heretic. That is to say the expansion of literacy and education amongst women was wrong, the greater abundance of consumer goods was wrong, the greater accesability to medicine was wrong. Damn, if all those things were wrong, then i dont want to be right.
I\'m right, and you\'re wrong. -Vox
you're right agustosandino, the revolutionaries weren't fighting for the poor or equality, they were fighting to gain power and to impose all that anti-westernization crap you mention.
however the point is that america's actions fed into and fueled there goals. they could point (and under many circumstances, rightfully so) at the shah and the u.s. and blame them for iran's problems. they could then fool the people and make them think that they would fix everything, and as soon as they had power, they proceeded with flushing the country down the toilet.
how can you say, america was the "good guy." because they opposed the new iranian government? they didn't oppose the government. they just helped iraq bomb civilians of iran. they did nothing against the government just against the people.
\"One murder makes a villain...millions a hero. Numbers sanctify, my friend.\" -Charlie Chaplin
The fact that Middle Eastern regimes scapegoat the United States in an effort to solidify their own position is no reason to throw our hands up and become uninvolved in the region. We can solve this problem by making sure that certain staples of democratic society (like non-state-controlled media) are installed so that the citizens of these nations can make informed judgements about America and the West for themselves.
\"Everybodys interests are not naturally opposed to everybody elses...I dont see any argument that states how one person\'s interests must be maltreated by a society of freely associating equals.\"
-pea¢eniKKKed
The US was the good guy, huh?
Like when the CIA overthrew the Mossadeq gov't?
And let's not forget, folks, that the US was sending arms to Iran in the Eighties, and that doesn't even include the Iran-Contra crimes, though Iran-Contra was part of our foreign policy and should not be overlooked.
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's talk about things that happened half a century ago! That would be really constructive!
\"Everybodys interests are not naturally opposed to everybody elses...I dont see any argument that states how one person\'s interests must be maltreated by a society of freely associating equals.\"
-pea¢eniKKKed
how would the middle eastern reagimes scapegoat the us when they r the us's allies? the ppl here do make informed judgements about the west and america because the dominant part of where we get our information from is not state conrolled...
\"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how
