Quote:
Originally posted by Radek:
To Ronn_Bman. You are repeating the standard propaganda about Saddam not allowing his people to feed. If you want to know the reality then check, for example pages of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck (http://www.notinournames.org).
Note: D. Halliday was the first UN administrator of the "Oil for Food" programme. H. von Sponeck was the second UN administrator of the same programme. Therefore, both D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck are people that know what are they speaking about. Both of them abdicated after finding out what the programme really is.
|
I'm repeating what makes sense. Just because it's on the news doesn't necessarily make it propaganda.
If he has the money to continually buy
grossly expensive weapons, then he should be spending
that money on food for his people. The UN inspectors say he's been buying conventional weapons and possibly equipment for WMD based on what they've found so far, and he's certainly been buying AA sites(if not he wouldn't have any left). It doesn't make sense to believe it's ok for him to spend money that way, while his people starve.
The people on your site don't say Saddam isn't spending money for weapons that he should be spending on food, so I repeat, if he isn't spending the money he
already has for food when his people are starving, and he wasn't spending money to feed the starving before the sanctions, why would anyone think that giving him more money would change the fact that Iraqi's are starving.
I have a hard time believing the anti-war lobby believes in
trickle down economics.
The only way they'll all be fed is if international humanitarian groups go in and feed them. Of course feeding his population for him, while allowing Saddam to spend his money on military might and personal fortunes just isn't going to happen.
[ 01-17-2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]