1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Iraq Embargos

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Jan 5, 2003.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Omar, do you really want to start with the embargoes?
     
  2. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Why not!

    Unless you deny that embargos has been detrimental to the Iraqi people?
     
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Cause and effect, Omar.

    Embargos were placed there why, exactly? Who holds the decision to release the embargos? Who is pocketing the rest of the aid and the stuff that they CAN buy and do?

    The embargo has laid a nice waste to the country, but it was applied and kept because of one man's decision, and he ain't G. W. Bush.
     
  4. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    No, but the US and the rest of the West need to admit that these applications do not work. You still have France and Russia supplying the Iraqi government with everything they desire. The only people you are hurting are the people who would be your allies.
     
  5. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives to hit it!

    A leader of a country has a duty to protect and provide for his/her people. Somewhere along the line Saddam has forgotten that principle. That is one of those fine lines between leadership and dictatorship.
     
  6. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Ok, for argument's sake, let's agree he is a dictator. The point I am trying to make is that you are not hurting him, and the embargo will not have his people overturn him.

    It's been proven in the past, that an application of a foreign country will have its populace rile to the current leader, no matter how horrid he is.
     
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    If one accepts your argument, Omar, one must assume the only way to get rid of this cancer is to invade. What you said was that the worse a leader the less likely anything will work but force. Seems to me we realized that. Lifting the embargo would only arm him further.
     
  8. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives to hit it!

    Was the embargo there to harm him or to impair his ability to harm others?
     
  9. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    I am not sure what the intent was. I am, however, sure your leaders will give you all sorts of reasons, pending the weather.

    What I see is the result not the reason for them. I don't think seeing the result is more wrong than seeing the reason, Mr. Frodo.

    Shiney, I don't see how lifting the embargo will further hurt his own people.
     
  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I said ARM him further, not HARM him further.
     
  11. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    According to the US, he is already armed enough to go to war over it?
     
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Yes. And if we believe that it would be pretty foolish to allow him an infusion of more arms just before we may have to attack. The embargo was designed to disarm him. Clearer?
     
  13. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    The embargo was placed in the early nineties, it's obvious Saddam has armed himself despite of it, if the US thinks he has enough to go to war over. What it is doing is just hurting the Iraqi people not anything Saddam devised.

    Clearer?
     
  14. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives to hit it!

    Correct me if I am wrong, I probably am. I learned in high school that an embargo on Germany prior to WWI was one of the main reasons the Germany made war upon the other European countries. They were running low on food, fuel, and the resources needed to run keep it alive, so they felt the only recourse was war. Since high school I have found many of the things I have learned their to be false. Maybe someone can clarify this for me.
     
  15. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    It's hurting the Iraqi people at Saddam's choice.

    If Saddam chooses to, he can have the embargo lifted. Just comply with the ceasefire agreement from the first invasion. He signed it, he agreed to it, now if he just complies with it, his people will be in great shape. He chooses to be elusive and to pursue arms.

    Why don't you ask Saddam why his people suffer? People ask the US that question, but don't require anything of Saddam.
     
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I wouldn't call the Versaille Treaty an embargo but there were huge limits and financial penalties applied to Germany. And yes, you are correct, the rise of an extremist like Hitler can be very much applied to that application of punishment.

    I don't exactly agree with Omar on this issue, but he does raise an interesting point about the results of the embargo.
     
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Omar, I understood. My point was that if we allow unlimited shipments into Iraq we have vastly increased the opportunities to smuggle in weapons. The embargo has not been a total failure.
     
  18. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    People ask this everyday, but unlike in the US, Iraqis would be shot, tortured, jailed and maimed if they tried it within the borders.
     
  19. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    No, I agree that US and West slowed down the process but you are at a crossroads right now and need to make the next move. If you guys want war, get it over with and allow the Iraqi people to live, not merely exist.

    I hope to Allah that you will not leave the Iraqi people hanging in the desert wind after the ordeal. If you want angry Arabs, try to leave Iraq after the deed is done without any form of help.
     
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I agree. But if our help is not wanted, if Iraqi's continue the fight with terrorist and guerrilla activities I vote to eliminate the WMD threats and get out.
     

Share This Page