An early Christmas for the Middle East

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Khairun Nisa,
i agree Iraq's a defanged tiger. All this talk of it being a "threat" is 'hogwash'. i'm sorry for my ignorance, do you mind explaining what you mean by stating a transition of power in Baghdad will "quell any upsurge and brotherhood the southerners feel for their brethren-in-faith-next-door." Are you referring to that Shiite-Kurdish rebellion back in 1991?

That raises an interesting problem - let's say the US ousts Hussein & the central administrative govt. in Baghdad crumbles. Do you think you would have Kurds in the north rising up in another pseudo-rebellion? Would this be in tangent with a south-based rebellion as well?

i think, with all the "NUKE 'EM" rhetoric bombarding our ears, more to save face in the intl arena than anything else the US now has cornered itself - it feels it HAS to eliminate Hussein.

Fraudia,
i. Should Iraqis suffer? - No
ii. Have sanctions caused massive damage to Iraqi society and further entrenched the regime? Yes
iii. Should all non-military sanctions be removed to allow some breathing space for the Iraqi people, to decrease their sense of hostility towards the West, to allow access to the outside world via books, computers, satellites, knowledge - thus increasing Iraqis' access to outside political ideologies so that they are not solely bombarded with Hussein's rhetoric? Should all non-military sanctions be removed so that the people do not feel alienated and bitter towards the West - perfect recipes for spawning more terrorists? Yes
iv. After lifting economic sanctions, should we stop interfering in the lives of others and let the Iraqi people determine their own fates? Yes

You are looking at secondary causes. You are fixated upon Hussein as though he is the one who has murdered 1.5 million folks, 500,000 of whom were tots. That's the cause of sanctions alone, not the Mad Evil Dictator. There are a dozen UN reports you can read on that subject. Lift all economic sanctions, then let the Iraqi people deal with Hussein as they deem fit. For 12 years, the US hasn't been able to remove Hussein - why expect a starving population to do the same?

22

nadia, whast your solution? I hear complaints but no solution, from any block. US is fixated on attacks, Uk under Blair has no foriegn policy of its own, the countries who want to avert war have not made any headway any other way.

economic sanctions were one way to pressure saddam to have iraq disarmed. obviously it has not workled because the regime does not care about its people. So what i am asking is, what other way would you suggest that the disarmament is completed and confirmed.

So as of now I only see 2 options, continue this dog and pony show and keep the civilains suffering, have some rhetoric every few months..big words from the big guys involved and then all is back to normal. or to just get the disraming doen and regime change done once and for all and get it done and over with.

in absence of any other realistic plan, I would be in favour of a war, where the regime is changed, the country is disarmed and then let life go on. current situation does not help anyone, and just unilateraly lifitng the sanctions may help the people but it is not going to increase cooperation from the regime.

Once again, my sympathies are with Iraqi people, but they are also with Iraqi people if we let this guy go unchecked as well as people of other countries who may get affected by this regime's actions

23

Nadia, the debate has moved past ‘lifting of sanctions’ and is now close to how to get rid of him. If starved Iraqis can’t do it, US will step up to the plate. It has done so in the past to Germans, the Soviets, the Serbs, it will now do that to the Iraqi dictator, and Iraqis should be grateful that someone is ready to sacrifice the lives of its sons and daughters for their lives and their freedom.

24

Arming pesh murgas and opposition?

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Iraqis should be grateful that someone is ready to sacrifice the lives of its sons and daughters for their lives and their freedom.
[/QUOTE]

yeah there real grateful to america for killing 1 million children they are real grateful for the depleted uranium whcih has caused thousands of deformaties to children. they are real grateful for the bombed out hospitals good old america thank you very much!

And now there promising more bombing oh we are so grateful your here to save us and not intrested in the oil or starategic domination yeah right!

26

AK47, how do you know that? Watching too much Baghdad TV? The Iraqi defectors feel very different than what you are saying. That butcher alone is single-handedly responsible for the state Iraqis are in today. Luckily, the help is just around the cornor.

27

It's not about helping Iraqi defectors, it's about getting a regime which will guarantee US oil supplies and not attempt to build up a military arsenal that could pose a potential threat to Israel's own super-charged nuclear might.

Whether Saddam is a butcher or not is neither here nor there. Ariel Sharon is a butcher but that doesn't mean his country is going to get bombed. I would expect Syria to be next in line to be de-fanged once Iraq and Iran have been dealt with.

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
AK47, how do you know that? Watching too much Baghdad TV? The Iraqi defectors feel very different than what you are saying. That butcher alone is single-handedly responsible for the state Iraqis are in today. Luckily, the help is just around the cornor.
[/QUOTE]

Iraqi defectors oh there really reliable source of information are'nt they!

No one and you very well know the muslims don't suport saddam so don't patronize us, he indeed is brutal and american and britain where very happy to support him during iran iraq war in fact his chemical weapons where supplied from those humanitarian american and british armed forces. America is responsible for the state of iraq because saddam did'nt bomb his own country did he!

How you can say america is whiter than white and has no defect is not trouble maker and is angel state world saviour is really what they call kissing the ass a bit too much if you catch my drift!

29

America is responsible for the state of iraq because saddam did'nt bomb his own country did he! <<<<

AK47, that’s a news to me. Are you saying that chmes he used in the North, and butchering Southerners was conducted by Ali Baba? Wao man, I learn something new every day.

How you can say america is whiter than white and has no defect is not trouble maker and is angel state world saviour is really what they call kissing the ass a bit too much if you catch my drift!<<<<

47, even if Ethiopia help Iraqi people get rid of the butcher, I will kiss their ass. You meanwhile, keep your lips attached to Osama's ass. You belong there my man, if you catch my drift.

30

Knock it off with the lame insults.

Fraudia, will try to write my response in about an hour or so Insha'Allah if i get time. Thanks for your response.

Khairun Nisa, Judge Mentull and AK 47, agreed with everything you three wrote.

31

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *

America is responsible for the state of iraq because saddam did'nt bomb his own country did he! <<<<

AK47, that’s a news to me. Are you saying that chmes he used in the North, and butchering Southerners was conducted by Ali Baba? Wao man, I learn something new every day

47, even if Ethiopia help Iraqi people get rid of the butcher, I will kiss their ass. You meanwhile, keep your lips attached to Osama's ass. You belong there my man, if you catch my drift.
[/QUOTE]

nyahmadhi you are typical american voter if you don;t know that america bombed the crap out of iraq i think you are just playing dumb heres a reminder GULF WAR ring any bells where there was a blitzkrieg on iraq duh!

hmmm on guppshup its infamous that you kiss american ass on every issue not just iraq if the truth hurts tough!

32

Fraudia, Many thanks for your patience.

i'm a bit confused - in your last post's second paragraph, you state that sanctions have not worked because the regime does not care about its people. But then, in your second-last paragraph, you state that unilateraly lifitng the sanctions may help the [Iraqi] people. Can i clear this up before we continue any further? Do you or do you not acknowledge that sanctions have caused massive deaths and suffering in Iraq, apart from any relationship with the policies of Hussein?

i want to clear this up before we continue any further because this point is intrinsically linked to my whole crux of the solution for this mess - i.e., lift all non-military sanctions. If i am debating with Person A about the necessity for lifting sanctions while Person A doesn't realize what massive destruction sanctions have caused, then basically there is no point in my talking.

33

This seems to a hot thread, ill post it here. Innocent until proven guilty aint it :D?

The burden of proof

Iraq weapons claims are open to question

Leader
Tuesday September 10, 2002
The Guardian

It is not necessary to be a rocket scientist to understand that George Bush and Tony Blair are in trouble over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The problem is not military, not yet at least; it is political. Every time the two men pronounce that Saddam Hussein poses an urgent threat, they are asked for their proof. And every time, as again at the weekend at Camp David, they fall back on assertions and claims, suspicions and half-baked half-truths. **The International Atomic Energy Authority, for example, has not issued a “new report” (Mr Bush’s words) on revived Iraqi efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. It has merely published some commercial satellite photos of new construction at WMD-linked sites that were dismantled during previous UN inspections. “We have no idea whether it means anything,” says an IAEA spokeswoman. The worrying thought is that neither, in all probability, does Mr Bush.
When Dick Cheney hints darkly at “new evidence” of Iraq’s malign intent, it emerges he is referring to mystery tubes that make components that make a centrifuge that makes enriched uranium that makes an N-bomb, produced and impounded we know not where, when or by whom. When Colin Powell insists that the US is working on the basis of “facts, not just speculation” and that Saddam is now “actively and aggressively” pursuing a nuclear capability, listeners, viewers and readers from Albuquerque to Abu Dhabi and from Gateshead to Gaza pause in their labours, sit up, tell the children to “shush” and, with mounting, breathless excitement, wait for the words that will finally expose Saddam for the ubiquitous menace he is. Yet still the golden bullet remains unfired; the smoking gun refuses to smoke. It transpires that an un-named defector, eager no doubt for a green card, has told a chap in the CIA that something may be afoot. And every time this happens, every time the Bush-Blair team fails to produce the goods, it gets harder to convince an already deeply underwhelmed audience. **

Mr Blair faces exposure to a large dose of this irradiating incredulity today when he addresses the TUC at Blackpool. He still lacks his own WMD dossier with which to shield himself. And yesterday’s report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, like similar independent and official compendiums before it, is not much help. That Iraq retains elements, possibly deployable, of its pre-1991 biological and chemical weapons stockpile is not in dispute. That it has a few, not very impressive short-range missiles is generally agreed. But that it is any closer to joining the nuclear club than it was in 1998, when the UN pulled out, is unsupported by a shred of new evidence. Indeed, the IISS study suggests Saddam may be further away from this goal than he was before the Gulf war began.

There are many “ifs”, of course, particularly the fear that if Iraq obtains fissile material from abroad, it has the expertise to fast-forward thwarted nuclear ambitions. The way to prevent such scenarios is a big push, parallel with resumed UN inspections in Iraq, to promulgate and enforce the moribund fissile material cut-off treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the biological and chemical weapons conventions, all of which anti-WMD pacts Mr Bush has at times ignored, scorned or undermined. Greater urgency should also be afforded last June’s G8 anti-proliferation plan and international cooperative threat reduction programmes on the Nunn-Lugar model. This is the best, multilateral way to halt WMD proliferation, not just in Iraq but across the globe. This, not Iraq alone, is the real threat and the real challenge.

And from Independent
**Mr Bush and Mr Blair have still not produced the evidence to justify war **

34

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**Fraudia*, Many thanks for your patience.

i'm a bit confused - in your last post's second paragraph, you state that sanctions have not worked because the regime does not care about its people. But then, in your second-last paragraph, you state that unilateraly lifitng the sanctions may help the [Iraqi] people. Can i clear this up before we continue any further? Do you or do you not acknowledge that sanctions have caused massive deaths and suffering in Iraq, apart from any relationship with the policies of Hussein?

i want to clear this up before we continue any further because this point is intrinsically linked to my whole crux of the solution for this mess - i.e., lift all non-military sanctions. If i am debating with Person A about the necessity for lifting sanctions while Person A doesn't realize what massive destruction sanctions have caused, then basically there is no point in my talking.
[/QUOTE]

yes you are correct.

1) lifting the sanctions will help people of Iraq
2) Lifting of sanctions will help government of iraq
3) this will not help the people of other countries around Iraq

there are 2 diff issues here and youa re focused on one..i.e. decreasing teh suffering of the people, what about decreasing the threat of this regime? a real solution will sort both these issues and both of them are worth solving.

i do not agree with these sanctionsthey way it is set up because too many peopel are suffering, it may be putting a block to the regime's arms development but does not do anything to solve the threat for real.
I do not agree with just lifting the sanctions because it decreases people's suffering but then it increases the threat to the region due to the ability of the regime to arm itself.

the real solution has to be one which solves both these issues. I do not want to be a saudi, an israeli or a kuwaiti, or for that matter even a kurd within iraq who will suffer from the threat this regime poses.

so it becomes question of helping iraqi people at the expense of their neighbours right now?

I would much prefer the regime being overthrown and the sanctiosn being lifted so the people of iraq and the people of the region can both breathe a sigh of relief.

35

We are getting somewhere.

2) Lifting of sanctions will help government of iraq<<

No. Not if non-military sanctions are lifted; by all means, retain whatever aspects of the military embargo you wish to but release bans and restrictions upon medicinal and food items so necessary for a civilian population of 22 million. Release the books, the toys, the computers, the medical journals that have til today been restricted from entering the country. Keep the military sanctions, lift the civilian ones.

This will not benefit the regime. That will, in my humble opinion, isolate the regime even more because the people will not have to rely upon the regime for food distribution. (As it is currently set up under the UN "oil-for-food" programme, the government is responsible for food distribution. Becomes a case of don't bite the hand that feeds you). If you have reservations on the above (specifically regarding lifting of sanctions will NOT benefit the government), i'm all ears.

what about decreasing the threat of this regime?<<
Now we're back to square one. i don't view Hussein as the Mad Ultimate Dictator - to put it bluntly, he has killed less civilians than the Security Council's superpowers via their tool of sanctions. And for proof, you can check the plethora of UN agencies & former UN individuals who have publicly propounded the same. The percentage of Hussein being a POSSIBLE threat to the region is substantially less than the ACTUAL death and destruction caused directly by sanctions.

You are talking about a potential threat to the region, i am talking about an ACTUAL threat that has already taken place and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million people.

36

Military action could be avoided if Saddam allowed inspectors inside Iraq with unrestricted access. Once this has happened sanctions could be reviewed and adjusted with a plan that would allow certain "dual-use" items in and monitored by additional inspectors to assure that these items are not used for destructive purposes.

37

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
We are getting somewhere.

2) Lifting of sanctions will help government of iraq<<

No. Not if non-military sanctions are lifted; by all means, retain whatever aspects of the military embargo you wish to but release bans and restrictions upon medicinal and food items so necessary for a civilian population of 22 million. Release the books, the toys, the computers, the medical journals that have til today been restricted from entering the country. Keep the military sanctions, lift the civilian ones.

This will not benefit the regime. That will, in my humble opinion, isolate the regime even more because the people will not have to rely upon the regime for food distribution. (As it is currently set up under the UN "oil-for-food" programme, the government is responsible for food distribution. Becomes a case of don't bite the hand that feeds you). If you have reservations on the above (specifically regarding lifting of sanctions will NOT benefit the government), i'm all ears.

what about decreasing the threat of this regime?<<
Now we're back to square one. i don't view Hussein as the Mad Ultimate Dictator - to put it bluntly, he has killed less civilians than the Security Council's superpowers via their tool of sanctions. And for proof, you can check the plethora of UN agencies & former UN individuals who have publicly propounded the same. The percentage of Hussein being a POSSIBLE threat to the region is substantially less than the ACTUAL death and destruction caused directly by sanctions.

You are talking about a potential threat to the region, i am talking about an ACTUAL threat that has already taken place and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million people.
[/QUOTE]

which other regime has attacked three countries, used chemical weapons, killed its own religious and ethnic minorities in a planned deliberate manner and is still in power?

he is not a potential thread, he has proved time and time again that he is a real threat.

Yes we are back to square one, because that is where we started and that needs to be resolved.

Again, life is unfair, too bad, we all deal with it and do the best we can, as nations and as people. They should get with the program, get disarmed and end of story.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
which other regime has attacked three countries, used chemical weapons, killed its own religious and ethnic minorities in a planned deliberate manner and is still in power?
[/QUOTE]

If the gassing of 5000 Kurds in 1988 bothers someone so much, then perhaps they should question why Hussein was not ousted in 1988; perhaps some questioning as to why rather than ousting him, the US made moves to sell him more weapons so he could continue his killing spree. Sad-damn didn't become a dictator overnight when Kuwait was invaded, he was a dictator before then as well only that the rest of the world was quite happy to suck up to his brutalities.

i had hopes, but i think we are back at square one and this discussion is not getting anywhere productive.

Military action could be avoided if Saddam allowed inspectors inside Iraq with unrestricted access.
UnderTheDome, but hasn't Bush stated that even if Hussein allows inspectors, he will still attack Iraq?

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

Military action could be avoided if Saddam allowed inspectors inside Iraq with unrestricted access.
UnderTheDome, but hasn't Bush stated that even if Hussein allows inspectors, he will still attack Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

You can bet on it.

40

Yo … i have the answer!!

read this article … all of it.. i know its long!

Its a third persons view, whose lived in the middle east, does not ‘kiss osamas ass’ nor ‘american ass’!!

I think he has the right info.. and theres no bias..

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=332182

Buy the way… im new… i dont usually participate on debates here but read a few every now and then. .. So hi.