babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Putin blasts Blair with sarcasm

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Putin blasts Blair with sarcasm
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 April 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in a bunker underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and bring down the lives of thousands of Iraqi people."

src: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,946264,00.html



From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 30 April 2003 03:18 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
President Vladimir Putin of Russia said after talks with Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, that [sanctions] should not be lifted until the UN was satisfied that the question of Iraq's illegal weapons had been cleared up.

It makes sense. After all, Iraq has huge piles of W'sMD that threaten Western countries (that's why regime change was so essential ). So, until the weapons are recovered and destroyed the sanctions should remain in place to protect western nations from this grave danger


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 April 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So now will you hold Putin responsible for the deaths of 3000 children under 5 per month until the sanctions are lifted?

Its been 2 weeks since the U.S. endorsed lifting sanctions. Does that mean the Russia and others are now responsible for as many civillian deaths as the U.S. military action?

Sanctions, do they kill or not? Were you wrong then or now? Its all so confusing.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 April 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the Russians have any humanity at all, unlike the British and Americans, they will allow the flow of UN sanctioned foods, medicines, and spare parts for electrical and water systems.

You see, markbo, in your incessant apologizing you fail to recognize that sanctions did not kill Iraqis just as the did not kill South Africans or Cubans. What killed them was the illegal action sof Britain and the US in preventing sanctioned goods from being delivered. It was a crime against humanity for which the US and British leadership should be tried right along side Saddam Hussein.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 April 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the Russians have any humanity at all, unlike the British and Americans, they will allow the flow of UN sanctioned foods, medicines, and spare parts for electrical and water systems.

Oh, and you know how much more humanity the Russians have. We can see it every day in Chechnya and how they acted in Afghanistan. HOpe you don't rely to much on their humanity as if this is how you gauge the U.S., the U.S. is Ghandi.

quote:
What killed them was the illegal action sof Britain and the US in preventing sanctioned goods from being delivered. It was a crime against humanity for which the US and British leadership should be tried right along side Saddam Hussein.

That is a non truth, what killed them if anything was the improper distribution of that aid. In the No fly zones we didn't see those deaths.

But now you argue that sanctions are OK. Show me once where you said this pre-invasion. You didn't, you only condemned sanctions and called for their removal.

But there you have your consequences you hoped for. If WMD were found the U.S. and Brits would have absolutely no problem doing what they want and taking the moral high ground.

And this is probably only the beginning of it. Wait until the Democrats unload on Bush, until China unloads.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve_Shutt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2922

posted 30 April 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for Steve_Shutt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo,

My understanding was that the failure of the Oil for Food program under the former regime was that Saddam and his cronies were preventing the proper distribution of food and other humanitarian goods. Certainly consistant with his robber-baron administration of the country. Now that he has "left the building" this program should be able to be restored and more effectively run by the occupation forces and ultimately by the new Iraqi regime. The humanitarian crisis should be adverted so long as the Americans were correct in their assessment of the source of the failings in the Oil for Food program.

As for the question of broader sanctions, one needs to have a government to lift them from. France's suggestion of a suspension of the sanctions does not seem unreasonable (which is why it is particularly annoying to the Americans) until the sanctions can be lifted in accordance with their presumed raison d'etre.

True France (and Russia) had long called for their lifting as they were satisfied that Iraq no longer posed a threat to the region but the Americans, Britain, Australia and Micronesia (among others) were convinced otherwise that the Iraqis were in possision of weapons posing a real and substantial threat to the region. Give the French and Russians some credit for accepting that the Americans may be right here.

The UN weapons inspectors felt that they would only require a few months to confirm or deny the existance of these weapons back in March and that was when Saddam's regime was actively opposing them - surely the task would be much quicker now that the Americans and the British can, safely, reveal the intelligence sources they had which concluded that there were WMD in Iraq. (Remember one of the little remembered requirements of Res. 1441 was for intelligence agencies to co-operated with the UN inspectors so as to assist in their efforts - both the Americans and the British were not as helpful as they might have been citing a desire to protect their informants on the ground however with Saddam gone this ought not to be so grave a danger anymore).

Are the French and Russians playing games. Of course they are. But they are very interesting games using many of the institutions often seen as being pro-American (ie the IMF, World Bank) which have a requirement to adhere to the letter of international law which the U.S. itself may tend to feel it can ignore. If the Americans are going to want someone else to pay for Iraqi reconstruction it will need to play along.

It is actually an easy bluff to call. Let the UN inspectors in and certify that there are no longer WMD in Iraq. The question of whether there were on March 18th does not need to be answered - the ambiguity serves both sides - but they also both get what they want in the bigger game: The U.S. - an ending of U.N. sanctions and France/Russia - a return of legitimacy to the U.N. process.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Steve_Shutt ]

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Steve_Shutt ]


From: coming in off the left wing | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 30 April 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, explain your little "no fly zone" theory please.

Have you not said (sorry if I am paraphrasing/misquoting becuase its VERY hard to dig through all your posts) that the Saddam regime did not distribute the resources to the Shiites while giving preferntial treatment to the Sunnis?

Though now you come out with this no fly zone stuff.. Of course the no fly zones where over Shiite populations (south) and kurdish autonomous province (north). And yet there is no reason why the resources would get to the people in the no fly zones better then in the middle sunni dominated areas.

Though I know that TV isn't the greatest source of info, but the supply stations setup by the government that reporters went to seemed to be well run and though the people said times were very tough that they did get the essentials. I understand that a monitor was watching over the reporters shoulder, but I do not think your claims are completely accurate as to the failings of Saddam's government to provide food.

IF there was the mass starvations you say, and the people would know that if there was enough food that someone was getting more, there would be revolts on mass scales. Note: French Revolution. If people knew that the government did have food, millions were dying people would revolt. If the people knew there was little food, but the government was getting little food people would not revolt as easily. So either Iraq did have a decent supply of food to its people or Iraq was not recieving the food it needed from the international community. No doubt there was skimming by the Baathists but on the scale you propose I think is highly unlikely. The quickest way to revolt is starvation, fear be damned. Most revolts occur because a lack of food, regardless of oppression.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 April 2003 09:16 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Markbo,
My understanding was that the failure of the Oil for Food program under the former regime was that Saddam and his cronies were preventing the proper distribution of food and other humanitarian goods......

How would keeping sanctions help the Iraqi people? You argue there is no gov't yet so who would the sanctions be punishing? The only people who would suffer under continued sanctions would be the Iraqi's

quote:
France's suggestion of a suspension of the sanctions does not seem unreasonable (which is why it is particularly annoying to the Americans) until the sanctions can be lifted in accordance with their presumed raison d'etre.

What evidence do you have that the suspension of sanctions is annoying to the Americans?

quote:
Give the French and Russians some credit for accepting that the Americans may be right here.

THat is a flawed and misleading argument. Assuming the Iraqi's still posessed WMD. How would sanctions affect this now?

quote:

The UN weapons inspectors felt that they would only require a few months to confirm or deny the existance of these weapons back in March and that was when Saddam's regime was actively opposing them - surely the task would be much quicker now that the Americans and the British can, safely, reveal the intelligence sources they had which concluded that there were WMD in Iraq.

Which is why I said I would start drawing my conclusions in 30 days after military action was completed even though U.S. inspectors still arrive even now.

But the U.S. never claimed they had the locations of these WMD.

quote:
(Remember one of the little remembered requirements of Res. 1441 was for intelligence agencies to co-operated with the UN inspectors so as to assist in their efforts - both the Americans and the British were not as helpful as they might have been citing a desire to protect their informants on the ground however with Saddam gone this ought not to be so grave a danger anymore).

And as soon as people start accepting that I agree.

quote:
It is actually an easy bluff to call. Let the UN inspectors in and certify that there are no longer WMD in Iraq.

How long would you give them? how much do you think this will cost Iraqi's?

quote:
Markbo, explain your little "no fly zone" theory please.
Have you not said (sorry if I am paraphrasing/misquoting becuase its VERY hard to dig through all your posts) that the Saddam regime did not distribute the resources to the Shiites while giving preferntial treatment to the Sunnis?

Though now you come out with this no fly zone stuff.. Of course the no fly zones where over Shiite populations (south) and kurdish autonomous province (north). And yet there is no reason why the resources would get to the people in the no fly zones better then in the middle sunni dominated areas.


You guys love rewriting history. It has been presented many times in other posts that the oil for food program was successful in all areas not under direct control of Saddam Hussein. THis is not becasue he favored them, its because the U.N. administered the Oil for food program in these areas.

quote:
IF there was the mass starvations you say, and the people would know that if there was enough food that someone was getting more, there would be revolts on mass scales.

Technically it was babblers who said that 500,000 people starved due to sanctions, not I. Argue this with them.

quote:
No doubt there was skimming by the Baathists but on the scale you propose I think is highly unlikely. The quickest way to revolt is starvation, fear be damned. Most revolts occur because a lack of food, regardless of oppression.

AH, sigh, where were you when someone on the left argued the damage of sanctions.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca