From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-11-10 20:57:20

Comment:

Mate, just a couple of things in reply to your post.
You said "It has been widely claimed that the US and Britain sold Weapons of Mass distruction to Iraq" - this is no claim. Go to a library and look at the news paper / current affairs for the early eighties era. This happened. On TV. Shaking hands. So, "claims" is wrong.
Also, you mentioned, and support (?) this "America had been blockading Iraq since the first war.  Since 9/11 it was clearly felt that the situation of having such an activly hostile nation in an all ready tense region was untenable."
First of all, "blockades" do not work. You ban basic produce/medical etc to a country and who will suffer 1st. The poor plebs - the ones who do not need to be targeted and do not wield the power in a dictatorship - this is obvious. The rich will not feel the sanctions at all. It is probably better to place international sanctions on the shipment of caviar to Iraq - Saddam may have felt that more.
How can starving the innocent be humanitarian???
I would also again like to mention to you - what is the difference between Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Israel. You mentioned "actively hostile nation" - mate, i hate to inform you of world matters but all the above countries are "actively hostile". So, what does Iraq have that the other countries don't? Saddam was performing these atrocities while rcving US and foreign military, financial and produce?
Dare i say the 'O' word.
Oil, boys and girls...
If you can factually, objectively and undeniably show a major reason why Iraq was singled out that doesn't involve oil, or the tenuous reason of harbouring terrorists (like all the other countries aforementioned do, and are "Active") - then i will accept your statement.
And so will the rest of the world - and not just the democracies.
Thankyou
Alistair
Australia