[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Our Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lorelei ( on January 24, 2002 at 19:33:58:

Simply put, the sanctions would not be put on Iraq had
not Saddam been the terrorist that he is. He is a terrorist.
He kills his own people. He steals the nation's milk
money. His campaign against Iran led to the
loss of lives on a scale hard to imagine, not to
mention the number of maimed or permanently injured
men who survived those wars. He is not a lover of peace.
He is partly responsible for those sanctions.

But who is even more responsible than Saddam? Who bears
most of the responsibility for the starving children?


(No, that was a joke)

It is the Army, his minions, his thaabits who
support him and make saddam saddam. A government
without the army is nothing. If the army
seized control and did what is right for their people by collectively renouncing
allegiance to the regime, saddam would shit in his
pants and run. No one else to fight if his own army
will point guns at him.

If there are two evils, sanctions and saddam's army,
then i would say sanctions are the lesser of the evil.
Both are evil. And if any of you think i support sanctions,
then please don't respond to this post. Or go ahead
but simply put, i don't support sanctions. But i do
understand that ultimately the people of iraq,
starting with the army, must out saddam. That is simply
all that is left. Nothing more, nothing less.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Our Forum ] [ FAQ ]