h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Iraq has been bombed persistently since the Gulf War by the UK and US. Everyone seems to be worried about how Saddam kills families, what about the million plus children estimated to have been killed by the economic sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War?"

If Saddam is not removed the sanctions will definitely remain, so many, many more will die. If people refuse to support any attempt to remove Saddam then they must ultimately choose the continuation of sanctions and what that will mean for Iraq.

Zagreb -
That's not necessarily true.
I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the economic sanctions but as someone else has mentioned, France, Russia and a number of other countries have trade agreements with Iraq on hold which will hopefully see the people of Iraq (rather than the military) receive some more wealth.

Besides there must surely be some kind of compromise available where a consensus of countries could agree not to supply weapons, inspectors could be deployed regularly to make sure the military is not being built up, and that schools and hospitals and other vital parts of the Iraqi infrastructure could be re-built. (Probably too much to ask I know, but you have to start somewhere)


Damn you Zagreb - I didn't want to get into another political debate

Problem is, Saddam won't allow any sort of trade except the full removal of sanctions (remember his refusal of the "Oil for Food deal"?). He's using his own people to morally-blackmail the West. This is one of the many reasons why we should get rid of him.

Frogbit, it's a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." You try to establish that people able to breed become more sensitive, and that the rest of us are less qualified to comment.

I must admit, when you first brought up the question of how many here are parents, I jumped to the conclusion that you were going to poison the well this way. But based on your remark about "multiply that feeling tenfold" for parents earlier, I was right.

My response was never, "I don't have a child, so I don't see it would make a difference." My response was more like, "Whether or not someone has a child, it should still be clear that this is the kind of war the UN was formed to prevent."

"Emotive, avoiding the question, being so completely obviously off the point in an attempt to prove what, Subcom?"

Completely on point, proving that you wanted to poison the well.

"Problem is, Saddam won't allow any sort of trade except the full removal of sanctions (remember his refusal of the "Oil for Food deal"?)."

Maybe Saddam refused one of the various proposals for an "Oil for Food" deal. But if he stopped that from happening altogether, then what is this United Nations Office for the Iraq Program talking about?

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

"To date, some $36.6 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been approved. Supplies and equipment worth almost $24.1 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $9.8 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline."

so if all this humanitary stuff is getting to the counrty then why isn't it getting to the people?


()

Compared to ten years of sanctions, thats a tiny drop in the ocean, I'd think.

"..so if all this humanitary stuff is getting to the counrty then why isn't it getting to the people?..."

Maybe because it's being siphoned off to build palaces.

I don't object in principle to removing Saddam militarily; I think the timing's bad as there are more important things in the Middle East right now and Saddam's not really rattling cages at present.

However, I DO object to that election-losing racist moronic hypocrite in the White house trying to take the moral high ground.

"Frogbit, it's a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." You try to establish that people able to breed become more sensitive, and that the rest of us are less qualified to comment."

Not trying to poison any wells, Subcom - never in fact heard the expression before.
My original question was simply asking how many people here are parents. You decided I was "poisoning the well" and jumped on me for it rather than asked what I meant, prompting my un-premeditated response. I wasn't suggesting that anyone was less qualified to comment.
I have every respect for people who choose not to have children, they lessen the burden on the environment.

Perhaps if people gathered facts more instead of deciding the other person's intent based on their own ideaologies, non-inflamatory solutions would present themselves.

Your phraseology "people able to breed " hints that perhaps the choice not to have children was perhaps not your choice at all.

That was a deliberately inflamatory sentence, based on my interpretation of your response.

Cr*p, isn't it?

I agree with you Frogbit and no matter your reason rather cruel also.

tadsacduck - "so anyone who sides or agrees with the US automaticaly becomes are lap dogs and anyone who disagrees the nobbel few and proud??? interesting opinion non the less"

Agreeing with the removal of SH doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the US. Agreeing with the US doesn't need to mean blindly pledging to support war wether or not the people agree with their government.

Australians have been shown in the news to be angry at their government. Do you or I know how brits feel about it. I've heard that brits are angry at the potential cost but I can't substantiate that.

"and anyone who disagrees the nobbel few and proud???" - I don't see how this applies when it seems that the US/UK/Asutralia are a clear minority.

STARBIRTH - Thanks. It *was* a cruel thing to say, and was typed in the heat of the moment. Yesterday I was unfairly treated in RL and allowed the experience to bleed over into this thread. I shouldn't have done. I felt I was being misrepresented, and towed along behind someone else's bandwagon.

SUBCOM - Although I still feel the sentiment of my posting to be valid, it was voiced in an unecessarily brutal fashion. I hope you will forgive me.

I extend an olive branch in hope of peace between us, but fully understand if you stick it up my nose.

The least we can do during a discussion about diplomacy versus war is keep our heads.

Frogbit.

Now can we get back to this discussion? Things are getting overshadowed by this spat.

If 2 people can't use dialogue to settle their differences, what chance do two countries have?

Apparition: reading an earlier posting of yours, the British prime minister is facing extreme opposition to a war from it's own government. I don't know about the public, though. The reasons for attacking haven't been made plain - given that the bad man is trapped inside the world's biggest sandpit and has no capability to strike outside his own territory I'd say many people were confused about the issue.

I hope 2-bit's right and it's just a lot of barking. Britain is viewed by the world as one of America's closest allies. If Tony Blair actually stood up and told Bush where to go, then Bush might well realise how isolated he is.

On seconds thoughts, scratch that. I honestly believe the man thinks America needs the support of no-one.

As a good will gesture, so as not to appear hypocritical, he could always offer to let the weapons inspectors have a peek in his own country first.

I'll blame it on being friday morning but I've only just noticed 508 was removed. Is that post what people are upset at? (what ever it was)

Didn't see it. Anyone?

neither did i...who was it?

alec.

Frankie

(lurking, sorry...)

>I hope 2-bit's right and it's just a lot of barking.

I'm not so sure anymore. I was reading some news stuff. My gut feeling is that we're not geared up for it. I may be wrong. I've been overwhelmed by work and job hunting.

The president appears to be ready to get authorization from Congress.