View Single Post
      03-24-2008, 08:49 AM   #47
ganeil's Avatar

Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
"The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just 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 and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued."
So, the sanctions failed to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Let's take a look at those "other goals" and see how well they faired.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. - FAILED


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities." - FAILED

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. - FAILED

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others. - FAILED

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. - FAILED


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population. - FAILED

UNSCR 1115

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. - FAILED

I have full confidence in the US military. I'm sure we CAN send troops to hunt down terrorist cells in Pakistan. However, we aren't. We are also in Iraq for no reason. That was kind of my point.
Are you advocating the invasion of the nuclear armed, US allied Pakistan?

There is no field of battle. There is no opposing standing military. What's your point?
You need a standing military to have a field of battle???

I commend you for your service, I'm sure it's been exemplary and you're obviously a true patriot, I'm not challenging that. What I am challenging is your views on the current international policy, which is extremely short-sighted...

I'm NOT using their sacrifice to make a politcal point. What I am saying is their sacrifice proves patriotism and integrity of our soldiers, not their fanatisism or convictions. Claiming they died for a political cause is doing them a disservice, they died for their country.
You want to leave a failed state in the heart of the middle east in the hands of our sworn enemies and my view is short sighted?

No one claimed our soldiers are fanatics. They volunteered for this fight, with rare exceptions they believe in this fight. They do not want to surrender and leave the Iraqi people to extremists who chop off the heads of those who oppose them. Claiming their losses as justification for surrendering IS using their sacrifice for political ends.

UN forces have been capable, especially during the initial deployment. However, UN regularly limits their power, and withdraw them after they are unsuccesful.
Care to give a few examples of successful UN military operation?

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i