What were the UN sanctions against Iraq supposed to achieve?

[DEMON CUNT]

C'mon, Brainiacs!

Reason for war: "We Invaded Iraq because Saddam violated UN blah, blah..."

What were the UN sanctions against Iraq supposed to achieve?

[Big Train]

They were successful...they allowed the setup of a cat and mouse game in which foriegn leaders made all kinds of kickbacks while the suffering continued and worsened. They did what they were designed to do, which is unfortunate.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
C'mon, Brainiacs!

Reason for war: "We Invaded Iraq because Saddam violated UN blah, blah..."

What were the UN sanctions against Iraq supposed to achieve?

Actually this is a damn good thread for getting rid of the UN. Without sanctions, the UN has no power. None. Nada. Zilch. :gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Unable to answer this question: Big Train, BigBlandBrian

Anyone..?

What were the UN sanctions against Iraq supposed to achieve?

[DEMON CUNT]

C'mon! Warham?

[Nickdfresh]

The Iraqi Army was greatly weakened by by the sanctions. They had no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam hated Islamic fundimentalists almost as much as we do, and he was a counterbalance to the Iranian threat in the greater Gulf region. The majority of those in the Pentagon wanted no part of this War and thought the policy of containment was working well.

In fact, I bet if we never invaded, Saddam would have been overthrown in a coup de tat within five years because all evidence indicated he was losing his grasp on reality. Those around him noted that he was spending more-and-more time writing a bizarre novel. He was ripe for the plucking.

[Big Train]

What is the response your looking for Cunt? You seem to be waiting for a particular response..enlighten me.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
What is the response your looking for Cunt? You seem to be waiting for a particular response..enlighten me.

Bloody hell, dude!

What were the UN sanctions against Iraq supposed to achieve?

[Big Train]

I've told you my response. Now waiting on your "correct" answer.

[BigBadBrian]

http://www.cert.dfn.de/infoserv/dib/c3_animation.gif

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
I've told you my response. Now waiting on your "correct" answer.

Which means that you do not know. That is not a suprise. You can't even find a lenghty article to copy/paste into this thread?

Actually, I don't know. Saddam's defiance of the UN is/was one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, or so says a certain con.

I was hoping for some enlightenment on the subject. Anyone?

[Big Train]

I GAVE you a response shithead. How do you know that I don't know if you yourself admit that you don't?

The reasons for invading I have theories on myself, I thought we were just talking sanctions, those 12 pointless years...

[diamondD]

I thought it was punishment for invading Kuwait. We went to war and ALL the superpowers agreed that they should surrender their WMDs so that it couldn't happen again, not just the USA.

But I know, I know, it was spoon fed by the media and it's because we're Christians that we bought it. :rolleyes:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
I thought it was punishment for invading Kuwait. We went to war and ALL the superpowers agreed that they should surrender their WMDs so that it couldn't happen again, not just the USA.


Now you are onto something there. So punishment? Or perhaps, coercion?

So if there were no weapons in violation of the UN, then the sanctions worked. Correct?

****

See BigBland? Someone understood the question. Keep an eye on diamondD, he's on his way to the top!

[diamondD]

The problem with your theory is that Iraq didn't fully comply to the sanctions as they were intended. They thumbed their nose at the international community while cutting backdoor deals with the French, Russians, and Germans. The sanctions were only working against the civilian population, not the people in power.