[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

From: Roman Zippel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:45:24 +0200 (CEST)


On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:

> >> If we wanted Iraqi oil, it would have been enormously cheaper and
> >> quicker to abet the corrupt UN oil-for-food program or just drop the
> >> sanctions entirely.
> >
> > It was quite well known that the iraqi people suffered from it and I 
> > can't
> > really remember that the US had any interest in doing something about
> > this.
>   We did, there were several discussions about it, and led in part to
> our frustration with the UN. Whether or not Osama had links to Saddam,
> he was definitely using the sanctions as a recruiting drive. One of the
> driving forces behind the oil-for-food program was Madeline Albright, in
> part to help relieve the humanitarian problems brought on by the 
> sanctions.

So why had the US no interest in lifting these sanctions? That the 
oil-for-food program was abused is one point, but the suffering of the 
iraqui people is another. Your only reflex to the sanctions is that there 
was a abuse of the only thing that actually helped the people. What good 
did the sanctions? That maybe Saddams power was stabilized? What were the 
plans after sanctions (they had to be lifted at some point)? Had the US 
any interest that Iraq strengthened its economic ties to Europe? Why was 
the US so interested to invade Iraq again? Liberating the people in iraq 
was certainly not a primary reason, that doesn't explain the sudden rush 
after doing nothing for 11 years. Why did the US go in without the support 
of the UN to share the burden, such a war costs a lot of money, which has 
to come from somewhere.
Sorry Pierce, as long as you stay at the level of some rather boring 
political games between the US and Europe, this will get nowhere. Throwing 
Osama into this makes it only more ridiculous.

>   Fair enough that its shallow, but so are _your_ arguments. Its the 
> nature of the medium, that email discussions are a bit shallow. I never 
> said the prison torture cases are just a few individuals, I just 
> pointed out that they came to light not because some crusading reporter 
> uncovered them, but because the Army was prosecuting them.

Wrong, the Army wasn't prosecuting anything, it was investigating after 
complaints of soldiers. Only the pictures brought the whole thing into 
movement and forced the Army to actually do something about this.

bye, Roman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]