Hah, hah, how delightful sarcasm. I'm laughing my ass off. :sleepy:

It is true that the UN passed resolution 678 to authorize "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" (660 condemning the invasion and demanding the withdraval of Iraqi troops). Technically this is not quite the same as waging a war.

Anyway, that's not the point. Had you actually read my post and the article, you would've noticed that I wasn't talking about who started the war. I was talking about the starvation and deaths in Iraq after the Gulf war and the reasons for them (a topic you brought up). Here is a quote from the article:

--------------------------------------------------

"As the New England Journal of Medicine put it, "The destruction of the country's power plants had brought its entire system of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children.... Although the allied bombing had caused few civilian casualties, the destruction of the infrastructure resulted in devastating long-term effects on health."

Also missing were statements by Pentagon strategists of their intention to cause just these results. In a 1991 interview with The Washington Post, one of the planners candidly admitted: "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.' What were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions -- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."

Why did we want to accelerate the effect of the sanctions?

Three weeks after the end of the Gulf War, The New York Times -- echoing statements of the first President Bush -- gave us a candid answer: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." This appeared in a front-page story covering a major United Nations report on Iraq that predicted epidemic and famine if massive life-supporting needs were not rapidly met.

Simply put, sanctions -- with epidemic and famine -- were there to force "regime change.""

---------------------------------------------------



Things are sure going great now that the US have set the mistakes made by the UN straight (more of that good ole sarcasm ;) )

When will the US be gone, in 10 or perhaps 20 years? Bush probably also thought he could just waltz right in and say "Here is freedom and democracy á la USA for you. Enjoy!" and all would be well. The truth does not quite work that way however. And until "eventually" happens (if it happens), the positive things are all just speculation. What we do know is that the situation is now very bad.

There is no proof that the US can make all murders, rapes or torturing disappear from the Iraq by attacking them. True, some systematical mass murders by Saddam and his regime will disappear. But there will also be new unrest (as can be seen at the moment) which may very well also continue after the peace some day is possibly achieved. This unrest can cause all the bad things you mentioned to happen to the Iraqi people.


This must sound very comforting to the Iraqi people, or to the coalition soldiers. Very easy to say, not that easy to do.


I just wanted to be sure before I call half of the population of the USA evil. Since Bush turned out to be one evil sob for the whole world and since Bush supporters passively accept the things he's doing they must also be evil, right?

(I hope that didn't sound provocative ;) )

__________________