I'm not going to say I've really studied it, but from what I have read, there were UN peacekeepers and dutch soldiers who were there during the masacre, who just stood by and watched. They weren't allowed to engage because it was "tribal warfare" or something. I don't know either way if the US had anything to do with that, but I really don't think they had negative effects, they just didn't try to do anything positive, because there was no interest there.the UN backed out with the urging of the US. but yes, the whole world fucked that one up.
i've yet to see any actual proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Again, I'm not claiming to be fully informed on this, but the US made it illegal to take food into the country, they also target power stations (so fridge's wouldn't work to keep food). Alot of the starvation was because of UN sanctions, yes, but if you do something, and notice that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dying, you have to change your policy. Right?
actually the starvation and death is being caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with a UN resolution and extending the sanctions placed on it by the UN. when medicine and food are offered by international entities, they are either refused or taken and not distributed (in other words used by and for the people in power).
I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about 9-11, I was talking about this war on Iraq now. Its not a war. A war is a fight, its two sided, this is not. Despite what the media tells us about the great force Iraq has.
when a small child kills 300,000 people then we'll talk.
I know how to spell... I was trying to be funny. As for the other point, I guess thats really the issue isn't it. What justifies a war? for me, nothing.
so........ we should allow a leader that acts in this manner to stay in power because he hasn't dropped a nuke yet? (and it's nuclear, not nucular.)
thats how the press made him out to be. Thats what his popularity ratings seemed to show. He was such a great leader after that incident.
he's a hero?
haha... I'm laughing
we love war. all of us. because we're not really human, you see, we're American. and that means we're born with an innate sense to kill. we have an undying bloodlust. all of us.
just today i kicked an old homeless lady as i was walking down the street to my high paying job exploiting underage factory workers.
this weekend i plan on clubbing baby seals.
that doesn't mean they're going to come after the US does it? My point was that if the US doesn't cause harm, they won't be targeted by angry people. Your point didn't counter mine.
yes, i suppose all the families of the people Saddam has killed don't mind at all.
hello? it was in the quote you had! redirected military spending. its actually pretty simple. Military spending effects employment, causes inflation, creates deficits, affects positive productivity, and most of doesn't help any of the unmet social needs.
not a bad idea. what would the solutions to proposed world problems be?
an example of the latter, one half of 1% of one year's world military budget would purchase enough farm equipment to permit the world's low income countries to reach food sufficiency within a decade (according to the Brandt Commission on North/South Issues).
in 1987, a UN conference on the relationship between military spending and economic development was attended by 128 countries, but wonder of wonders, was boycotted by the US who claimed that disarmament and development are separate issues.
no, they just executed the guys responsible. see, we knew who they were and we knew where to find them. i'm all for a sniper putting a bulet to the back of Saddam's head (and his son's too).
I hope you don't feel that way... it'd be pretty sad.
since when has the US had acheivement in solving any world issues? when we get involved we're told we're trying to spread capitalism and westernize the world. when we stay out we're isolationist and self serving greedy bastards.