Action is better than inaction says my colleague. Well, I feel the phrase certainly makes sense but the action does not. If America had not invaded Iraq, they would anyway be suffering from the UN sanctions and more if not equal number of civilians would have perished due to the lack of proper medicines, says my colleague. I tell my colleague, the sanctions were enforced by the British and American troops. Following is an excerpt.
"
The humanitarian situation has deteriorated gravely after nine years of sanctions.... A UNICEF report said that the blockade deprives Iraqi children of their right to life. This situation drove many countries and NGOs to call for the lifting of the sanctions, especially since Iraq, according to impartial international reports, has fulfilled all its obligations to the UN. But the United States and some of its Western allies insist on continuing the blockade, disregarding these international reports."
More excerpts.
"
Despite the mockery of the international sanctions on Iraq and the illegality of the no-fly zones, U.S. and British forces continue their attacks against Iraqi sites, both military and civilian. It seems that America and Britain have expanded their air attacks to include more civilian targets and without giving any reasons that would explain targeting innocent civilians who are already suffering from unjust sanctions.... We condemn the continued aggression against Iraq as well as the unjust sanctions against the Iraqi children."
Well all this was happening in 1999.
So obviously this war has nothing to do with UN sanctions.
Many are justifying the aggression as a pre-emptive strike. Well, it certainly sounds logical for an argument sake. The point is there has been a proposal floating in Capitol Hill for about 10 years now, justifying the need to take Saddam out. It was a precautionary measure then and now. So nothing happened in the last 10 years. The talk about WMD has been going on for about 5 years.
To me all this sounds like building up a case to attack Iraq and install an American influenced government. When you tell the American people that this guy is evil and poses danger to American lives over and over again, many start believing in it.
China has weapons of mass destruction, China has forcibly occupied Xinjian forcing out the ethnic Uigurs, china has relocated millions of ethnic Han into Tibet making tibetans a minority, china does not allow any form of free press, china faces competetion from India in many fronts. Does this give Indians a case against the chinese? Certainly not. Can the Indians justify it by saying pre-emptive strike. Certainly not.
How about Pakistan? Every terrorist organization worth its salt hides in pakistan.
Resolving conflicts the right way, following the legal process is what is practised in democratic societies. Mr Bush has acted in a very undemocratic way by ignoring the call of United Nations, its Arab allies and the American people. This same Mr Bush also preaches democracy.
"
The humanitarian situation has deteriorated gravely after nine years of sanctions.... A UNICEF report said that the blockade deprives Iraqi children of their right to life. This situation drove many countries and NGOs to call for the lifting of the sanctions, especially since Iraq, according to impartial international reports, has fulfilled all its obligations to the UN. But the United States and some of its Western allies insist on continuing the blockade, disregarding these international reports."
More excerpts.
"
Despite the mockery of the international sanctions on Iraq and the illegality of the no-fly zones, U.S. and British forces continue their attacks against Iraqi sites, both military and civilian. It seems that America and Britain have expanded their air attacks to include more civilian targets and without giving any reasons that would explain targeting innocent civilians who are already suffering from unjust sanctions.... We condemn the continued aggression against Iraq as well as the unjust sanctions against the Iraqi children."
Well all this was happening in 1999.
So obviously this war has nothing to do with UN sanctions.
Many are justifying the aggression as a pre-emptive strike. Well, it certainly sounds logical for an argument sake. The point is there has been a proposal floating in Capitol Hill for about 10 years now, justifying the need to take Saddam out. It was a precautionary measure then and now. So nothing happened in the last 10 years. The talk about WMD has been going on for about 5 years.
To me all this sounds like building up a case to attack Iraq and install an American influenced government. When you tell the American people that this guy is evil and poses danger to American lives over and over again, many start believing in it.
China has weapons of mass destruction, China has forcibly occupied Xinjian forcing out the ethnic Uigurs, china has relocated millions of ethnic Han into Tibet making tibetans a minority, china does not allow any form of free press, china faces competetion from India in many fronts. Does this give Indians a case against the chinese? Certainly not. Can the Indians justify it by saying pre-emptive strike. Certainly not.
How about Pakistan? Every terrorist organization worth its salt hides in pakistan.
Resolving conflicts the right way, following the legal process is what is practised in democratic societies. Mr Bush has acted in a very undemocratic way by ignoring the call of United Nations, its Arab allies and the American people. This same Mr Bush also preaches democracy.
