Iraqi UN rep says that stopping the war is more important than aid

Remove all ads!

Here is the article, http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_UN_IRAQ?SITE=OKOKL&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

IMO this is another display of just how little Saddam's people mean to him. I know that all sides of this issue are using propaganda, but this speech takes the cake!

Again, IMO, this shows the desperation level of the Iraqi regime.

Despicable!

 

Let's say some one invades New York. Or London. Or Oslo.

The first thing that's going to happen is the civilians are going to be evacuated. The military is going to roll in, and engage the enemy long enough to evacuate as many of the people in the city as possible. But, in a dictatorship, you're worried about yourself; kind of like feudalism, except without all the freedom. If you have a benevolent leader, then all's well; but if you ever get just a single bad one in there, it takes a lot of blood to undo it.

Iraq knows it cannot win in a direct military confrontation. They are going to be using guerrila tactics, just like the NVA did.

It's really bad for morale when it's your own countrymen (women aren't as much of an issue in Iraq, literally, so I didn't say countrypeople) forcing you to join with them or die.

Right this second, if you are Joe Al-Schmoe living in Iraq, you are in a Catch-22. You will be either forced to carry a firearm, and shoot at Yankees and Britts; or you're going to be forced to stay where you are while your military uses you for a "human shield". They get bombed, you get bombed, and it looks bad for them.

If the Army (theirs, not ours) every unloads with the Fun Gas, the entire war will take care of itself in a jiffy. Because they will also wipe out a massive load of their own civilian population in the meantime, clearing out their shields. Wind just plain sucks.

And they know this too...man. And that's why they are going to be waiting until it comes right down to the wire before they flip anything.

Which clears the way for immigration after everything blows over. If you can make it across the border, Iraq might very well just be the place to live in the Mid-East; here in about 5 years or so.

 

Well the tactics they are using are the worst thing about it really. There's a reason why civilian shelterhouses, cultural objects, bombshelters etc are marked and protected, and denied of any tactical military use during a war. Because if you use civilians as a cover, infiltrate soldiers among them, etc, then you can hardly blame the attacking side of mindless civilian slaughter. I for one wouldn't. Just annoying that whatever the Iraqi civilians do, they end up getting the bad side of everything.

 

In a war a country always risks civilian and soldier's lives. That is well understood by Saddam. He's a bold gambler and he has before risked lifes in his criminal war against iran. When the iraqi gvt claims that it is more important to stop war than to get humanitarian life that is only consequent.

Every gvt sees itself justified to be in power and a foreign power trying to takes that exactly away is much more a threat than suffering civilians. And it is easy to take that risk for Saddam: He can easily blame the US for that. It's indeed a little ruthless.

But consider what the US might do if someone, let's say evil canada and france, would invade their country: Would the US give humanitarian aid a priority over fighting for their sovereignty?

 

Poor Joe Al-Schmoe in Baghdad, nor his wife, grandmother or 3 daughters, asked for the thousands of bombs to be dropped on their city.

It is so easy to say that Saddam will force them to fight, but I don't remember that it was Saddam who started the bombing last week....

It's easy to pontificate from ten thousand miles away....

 

The outrageous propaganda that I am speaking of is

From the article linked above:

The coalition has placed its soldiers in greater danger by attempting to not kill civvies. If the US wanted to "exterminate" the Iraqis, they would already be on the endangered species list, and that would be without using any nuclear weapons.

Khazraj,

You keep saying in various places something to the effect of, "what about the children, what about the innocent? They will be killed and injured in the attack". That is not a direct quote, and please accept my apologies if I am incorrect in my assessment of your position.

Do you think that children would have been safe from Saddam if we didn't attack? It is pretty much accepted that Saddam uses children, and women, as pawns to ensure obedience, torturing and killing them for failure. How many die from a lack of proper nutrition and medicine because Saddam abuses the UN trade restrictions? I agree that some children will be injured and die in the attack, but over the next 50 years that Saddam and his sons could be expected to rule, how many will be saved? I too believe that if there was some way to remove him from power without a war it should have been used, but no one has presented it. The only thing I have heard was to demand that he turn himself over to the international courts for trial on crimes against humanity. I personally don't think he would have shown up, so again, to get him there we (the world) would have to capture him. Assassination was already addressed in another thread, but it is not a tool that the US can employ, even if it was practical. Are there any other options out there? I wish that someone would present one so that we could stop this war, start taking out these horrible dictators, and start making the world a better place.

 

Any government would view it as MORE humanitarian to stop bombing than perhaps focus on food and water for a time. That's hardly rocket science.

The other reason is of course that unless the war is stopped they are all out of power. Whoever takes over it aint going to be Saddam's cronies. And the only thing that is certain with the conflict is the final outcome.

 

Darkwolf.

I do not support Saddam. I do not support the US action.

I am not saying, "let's compare the possibility or probability of a child dying under a US missile strike or under one of Saddam's missiles or chemical weapons".

I am saying this, "it is criminal to kill children under any circumstances". Because the US is doing this, I criticise it. I would do the same if the Australian government or any other did. There is no such thing as "co-lateral damage". Killing civilians (non-combatants) is a crime, no matter who does it, Saddam, US military, you or me.

If I murder a child in the US, I go to court and face the music. If I kill an Iraqi child when I was really aiming at Baath Party members, it's "co-lateral damage" and that is "regretable". Sorry, it's a crime in both cases and never justified.

Do you think that children won't die under US bombing campaigns? Are children more likely to die because Saddam exists as opposed to Bush?

If the US military can unconditionally and completely guarrantee that no child will die, then I support this method of regime change.

Likely, you may mention that this is war, we have to expect civilian casualties, etc, etc.

Be honest here Darkwolf, how many children do you have? How would you feel if a foreign power or terrorists dropped a bomb on them and killed them?

The US is so "innocent" just like the UK (and of course Australia). If this war did not start there would be no crisis of water, sanitation etc in Basra. Saddam did not start that.

I don't think it right to boil the war down to Saddam being cruel to the Iraqi people, yet we are liberating them through bombs, starvation (the oil for food program stopped and aid is now getting "well distributed") and ruined property.

People are leaving Basra because of what? The latest invasion or because Saddam used chemical weapons?

I find it hard to believe that bombing a house and killing a child is liberation from Saddam. Liberation in death, but for what purpose?

 

The majority of Saddam's crimes were committed when he was a friend and ally to the States. Him attacking Kuwait was almost the same as what the States did in Panama a couple of months earlier. Nicaraugua was another one. Chili, Guatamala, El Salvador, Vietnam, etc. The more bombs dropped, the more problems and resent are created. I think that they should finish what they've started quickly and with as least violence as possible. They need to pull some strings and get MAJOR humanitarian aid in that place.

 

By the UN, not saddam. He doesn't give a crap about his people