and the biggest killer of Iraq people since the first Gulf War was the continuation of the sanctions that deprived the country of money and resource.

Many Iraqis starved under the oil for food program largely due to the fact that Saddam was abusing the program, and the UN wasn't checking it properly. There's been a lot of research done on the oil-for-food program - I would suggest anyone read up on it before they assume things were just peachy in Iraq pre-invasion.

And for anyone that might respond "But that's not justification for invasion!" - I never said it was. Things are pretty screwed over there either way.

unarmedman wrote:

and the biggest killer of Iraq people since the first Gulf War was the continuation of the sanctions that deprived the country of money and resource.

Many Iraqis starved under the oil for food program largely due to the fact that Saddam was abusing the program, and the UN wasn't checking it properly. There's been a lot of research done on the oil-for-food program - I would suggest anyone read up on it before they assume things were just peachy in Iraq pre-invasion.

And for anyone that might respond "But that's not justification for invasion!" - I never said it was. Things are pretty screwed over there either way.

Had Iraq been allowed to sell its oil fairly, then regardless of the corruption of the regime, the country would've been in a far better position. However, US insistence on the maintenance of restrictive and unfair sanctions when Iraw was complying with arms inspectors in part led to the grandstanding of Hussain and the subsequent confrontation.

Before you start blaming the UN, I suggest that you consider the brutal trade restrictions put on the Iraqis that led to food-for-oil. The punitive sanctions were wrong-headed and encouraged the oppressive and aggressive behaviour of the regime; there is some similarity here to the disasterous Treaty of Versailles. It created a situation in which the regime was goaded into defiance.

Had Iraq been allowed to profit from its massive reserves of oil, had Hussain not gone off-message in 1991, one could envisage Iraq now being close to Saudi Arabia's situation. That is to say, an oppressive dictatorship friendly to the West, containing huge wealth controlled by a minority. Which is fine, as obviously the Saudi leaders are good guys. They're just a little old school, is all.

Now we have the situation where oil profits are again being extorted, but this time by the multinational companies that flooded in the wake of the invasion. I doubt that much will trickle down Reagan-stylee to the inhabitants of the land.

galanter wrote:

The cut'n'paste didn't address the point, and the only original writing was a content-free insult. Sorry you found my complaining about this annoying.

Phil, the content of the cut-and-paste demonstrates that the foundation and necessary precondition of democracy in Iraq, as overseen by its occupiers, is the wholesale of Iraqi sovereignty and autonomy in the main. A wholesale predicated on the chaos, terror and destruction wrought by a foreign invasion.

Cut'n-n-run'n from this fact does nothing to diminish its relevance to the discussion. It does, however, suggest that your ideological commitments have a tough time when confronted with history and reality.

The "insult" meanwhile, was not "content-free."

So sanctions are immoral and invasions are immoral. The world should just sit by and watch one man kill an entire nation if need be.

OK fine. Whatever. We already know what you would have done.
But now the current state is what it is however it happened.

You've been made President of the US. The current state of affairs is not your fault. Nevertheless, what do you do in Iraq starting today?

galanter wrote:So sanctions are immoral and invasions are immoral. The world should just sit by and watch one man kill an entire nation if need be.

These sanctions were wrong, and this invasion was wrong. Our meddling has done far more to kill Iraq than Saddam and his cronies ever achieved. 100,000-150,000, quite a number isn't it?

OK fine. Whatever. We already know what you would have done.
But now the current state is what it is however it happened.

You've been made President of the US. The current state of affairs is not your fault. Nevertheless, what do you do in Iraq starting today?

In short, I am uncertain. If not leave immediately, then at least announce a plan to leave and hand over control of all assets to elected government agencies.

EDIT: And watch with not inconsiderable schadenfreude as the war profiteers are booted out.

sparky wrote:These sanctions were wrong, and this invasion was wrong. Our meddling has done far more to kill Iraq than Saddam and his cronies ever achieved. 100,000-150,000, quite a number isn't it?

I dunno, I believe Saddam killed many times that number, didn't he? Anywho, I was certainly not for the war in Iraq, and we may have to be there 50 years to have any sort of positive outcome. But, I have to agree with Galanter that if sanctions are immoral AND attacks are immoral, than we are left with no options for dealing with dictators and despots. Personally, I think the blame for the people dying due to sanctions goes to the guy who got them there.

sparky wrote:

galanter wrote:So sanctions are immoral and invasions are immoral. The world should just sit by and watch one man kill an entire nation if need be.

These sanctions were wrong, and this invasion was wrong. Our meddling has done far more to kill Iraq than Saddam and his cronies ever achieved. 100,000-150,000, quite a number isn't it?

OK fine. Whatever. We already know what you would have done.
But now the current state is what it is however it happened.

You've been made President of the US. The current state of affairs is not your fault. Nevertheless, what do you do in Iraq starting today?

In short, I am uncertain. If not leave immediately, then at least announce a plan to leave and hand over control of all assets to elected government agencies.

EDIT: And watch with not inconsiderable schadenfreude as the war profiteers are booted out.

How many deaths do you think Saddam is quilty of? How many more do you estimate he would have committed before the end of his rule? Do you think his sons would have taken over then? What would life under them have been like?

If the US pulled out immediately what do you think would happen in terms of violence? If a hard timeline was announced what do you think the reaction of the insurgency would be?

Under your plan(s) do you think elections would still be held 2 years after the last troops leave?

stevenstillborn wrote:

sparky wrote:These sanctions were wrong, and this invasion was wrong. Our meddling has done far more to kill Iraq than Saddam and his cronies ever achieved. 100,000-150,000, quite a number isn't it?

I dunno, I believe Saddam killed many times that number, didn't he? Anywho, I was certainly not for the war in Iraq, and we may have to be there 50 years to have any sort of positive outcome. But, I have to agree with Galanter that if sanctions are immoral AND attacks are immoral, than we are left with no options for dealing with dictators and despots. Personally, I think the blame for the people dying due to sanctions goes to the guy who got them there.

My point is that these particular sanctions were wrong and killed far many more people than Saddam did. I am certain that the loss of life in the past three years in Iraq, and the future loss of life all directly attributable to the invasion, is far greater than that which would have been engendered by inaction. And who are we to take such a gamble on other people's lives?

I am not saying that sanctions by their nature are wrong. I am saying that these sanctions were. Iraq was basically told that regardless of their compliance with weapons inspectors and Western encroachment of their airspace, they were not going to be able to trade freely. This was stupid as it gave little incentive for Saddam to continue complying, apart from the threat that military action could follow. He took a gamble that the US were not aggressive enough to launch such a bloody operation and lost.

There is an argument to say that he was goaded into taking an action which would give the current US administration an excuse to invade. By far the most aggressive country in the Middle East over the past decade has been the US (and Clinton was not much better).

galanter wrote:How many deaths do you think Saddam is quilty of? How many more do you estimate he would have committed before the end of his rule? Do you think his sons would have taken over then? What would life under them have been like?

If the US pulled out immediately what do you think would happen in terms of violence? If a hard timeline was announced what do you think the reaction of the insurgency would be?

Under your plan(s) do you think elections would still be held 2 years after the last troops leave?

I have no idea. But the current situation is closer to the rape scenario that you are keen on invoking. As I've stated before, the insurgents are predominantly Iraqi as well. Doesn't that tell you something? Again, I ask you, who are we to tell a people what to do with their country?

As an aside, why hasn't someone even said sorry for the terrible fucking mess that they've created? It is murder and profiteering, pure and simple.