[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=225#231 date=04/10/03 at 20:28:21]<br><br>So, your logic is that because he has killed so many people - - and I'm sure Bush cares so deeply for them all - - we are OK if we only kill LESS people.[/quote]<br><br>The idea that we are "killing less people" than Saddam doesn't tell the whole story. I believe we're preventing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths over a period of decades by destroying Saddam's regime today. I see his overthrow as an overwhelmingly positive thing, although I realize this approach may be a bit too results-oriented for some ideologues.<br><br>[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=225#231 date=04/10/03 at 20:28:21]<br><br> BTW, surely Saddam could have capitulated and possibly the sanctions would have ended.[/quote]<br><br>We have seen Saddam's "capitulations" before. They have never amounted to anything, from the war with Iran through the UN's demands that he withdraw from Kuwait to the recent demands that he comply with UN resolution 1441. He offers his political allies (who he owes billions) an opportunity to manipulate their constituents by making promises that he doesn't keep in order to buy time, but all he has ever understood is force. <br><br>[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=225#231 date=04/10/03 at 20:28:21]<br><br>But you seem to neglect the fact that the U.N. and U.S. imposed those sanctions and steadfastly refused to drop them, even in the face of obvious indications that they were resulting in all those deaths (however many thousands there were). I'd say there's a shared responsibility here.[/quote]<br><br>I'm aware of the responsibilities of the UN and the U.S. regarding Saddam. But it is well to remember that Saddam refused the UN Security Council's plan to allow 2 billion dollars' worth of oil to be sold exclusively for food and medicine in 1995, demanding an end to all sanctions in spite of his refusal to abide by the conditions for their removal. And the sanctions never prohibited food and medicine from reaching the people of Iraq; the responsibilities for that failure lie squarely at the feet of Saddam.<br><br>In fact, in 2001, Britain and the U.S. pushed for new "smart sanctions" that would have removed almost all barriers to trade with Iraq, but Saddam scuttled the plan, claiming that it amounted to a "tightening" of restrictions.<br><br>He convinced many that were it not for the sanctions, Iraq would be a bastion of health and prosperity; all the while he and his party members lived in opulence, receiving the best medical treatment, housing and food available; He built scores of palaces and monuments for himself and his family members; his personal wealth in 1997 was estimated by Forbes magazine to be 6 billion dollars, enough to eradicate hunger and poverty in Iraq; and he did it all with funds earmarked for humanitarian aid.<br><br>You are correct that the U.S. shares part of the responsibility for all this; in fact, at one time he was considered (albeit tenuously) a marginal ally due to his war with our old arch-enemy Iran. We believed at the time that supporting Iraq in that war was our best chance at preventing the spread of Shi'ite fundmentalism in the region, as Iraq was purported to be a secular state.<br><br>As we share the responsibility for him, who better than we to deal with the responsibility? It is happening. We are attempting to right a wrong (and although Clinton did virtually nothing for 8 years, Bush has faced the issue squarely just over halfway into his term). I believe that Saddam's military overthrow, since he wasn't stepping down, is the only way to achieve the objective.
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!