News Is it possible to have a peaceful resolution without resorting to violence?

[omin]

What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? If the person had just talked things through with you without out throwing that punch, do you think you would have become physical yourself?

Is it psychological states and beliefs systems that increase the chance more that a person will physically act out upon you or the fact they were just hit by you? Which significanty is more relevant in increasing the threat of being hit?

I have a poll question about whether diplomacy or war elevates the terror threat level in your opinion, based upon your experience and knowledge in life.

What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

 

[member 5645]

Neither a war policy or a diplomatic policy is a good policy. Effective foreign policy requires a combination of the two. This is also a very general question that any other blanket answer would be grossly wrong.

We were not at war with Saudi Arabia, and we weren't in an active war in Iraq in the mid 90's. However, a major complaint of OBL is our bases in Saudi Arabia, used to implement internationally agreed on UN policy. We used sanctions, diplomacy, and were still attacked.

Muslim Fundamentalism will thrive where there is not sovereignty and not wealth in Iraq. Neither of those would become a reality for the common Iraqi with our policy in Iraq before. And our bases in Saudi Arabia would still be antagonizing al aqueda.

Looking for diplomacy to respond to terrorist attacks is a failed idea when the enemy is looking for a reality that doesn't involve your existence.. It didn't work any of the times we were attacked before.

 

[omin]

Neither a war policy or a diplomatic policy is a good policy. Effective foreign policy requires a combination of the two. This is also a very general question that any other blanket answer would be grossly wrong.

This was meant to point out how each policy in and of itself has an influence upon an attack uopn the American people. By pointing them out separately we, can see there individual value. Fusing them before hand, doesn't help understand the value of them together.

You are the one blanketing. You're fusing peices together and trying pass them off with value, when the bundles consists of very different parts that have values in and of themselves.

The rest of your comments are irrelevant on that point. Can you defeat me on the point that diplomacy lowers the threat and war increase the threat without getting them confused, or not? Or are you so mad that you want to hit me cause you're wrong?

 

[studentx]

Theyre less likely to attack when you do evrything they want. Thats what it boils down to. Pay the ransom and you can go... until next time.

 

[member 5645]

Can you defeat me on the point that diplomacy lowers the threat and war increase the threat without getting them confused, or not? Or are you so mad that you want to hit me cause you're wrong?

When I realized your intention was to 'win', I lost interest in continuing this thread. Adios.

 

[omin]

Theyre less likely to attack when you do evrything they want. Thats what it boils down to. Pay the ransom and you can go... until next time.

I sounds a bit like you are buying into the hollywood psychology of nutcase terrorists. That's what the president's team has tried to make Arabs appear as. Any Arab who has to use circumstantial means to defend themselves is labeled a crackpot. America is the one with road rage, mass murders, serial-killers, domestic terrorists, etc, not Arabia! That's why we understand crackpot, from our own people and Team Bush ties the psychological-emotional associations to Arabs. They've convinced the Americans that can be convinced because some American have real sloppy reasoning. It's not complicated, like Team Bush wants you to think. It's only complicated because they confuse things intentionally, and that makes it complicated to understand. But it's really very easy to understand if you think clearly about it. Put your self in Iraqi shoes, and ask yourself what you would think if your state was bombed for reasons the World said are BULL! (Democracy said no to the invasion of Iraq) You would want to defend yourself right? You don't have to think about that though, because it's not forced on you! But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources they would gladly trade for a fair enough capitalistic price! 911 happens all the time for them because of one ignorant presidential team called Team Bush. A clear indication of idiotic, inefficient, wasteful, entropic and criminal leadership. Stupidity can be very, very criminal. And our leaders have a real intelligence problem! Look how bad things are going on around the world. Look at the economy. What is good, was happening when Clinton was in office, but once these idiots got in power, the so-called "terrorism" and wars began and the economy has went to crap. The president is anti-science to boot. See what happens when religious, dogmatic, nutcases get there way? People kill each other and the economy worsens.

 

[graphic7]

If the United States focuses on a purely diplomatic policy with the middle east, it's to my belief that these recent kidnappings of American and European citizens will continue to no end. However, if the US adopts a war policy, it'll encourage more resistance against us. As someone has said, a mixture of the two is the way to go.

The United States has made quite a few mistakes in the last twenty years, and now we have to live with it and take the crap.

 

[studentx]

I sounds a bit like you are buying into the hollywood psychology of nutcase terrorists. That's what the president's team has tried to make Arabs appear as. Any Arab who has to use circumstantial means to defend themselves is labeled a crackpot. America is the one with road rage, mass murders, serial-killers, domestic terrorists, etc, not Arabia! That's why we understand crackpot, from our own people and Team Bush ties the psychological-emotional associations to Arabs. They've convinced the Americans that can be convinced because some American have real sloppy reasoning. It's not complicated, like Team Bush wants you to think. It's only complicated because they confuse things intentionally, and that makes it complicated to understand. But it's really very easy to understand if you think clearly about it. Put your self in Iraqi shoes, and ask yourself what you would think if your state was bombed for reasons the World said are BULL! (Democracy said no to the invasion of Iraq) You would want to defend yourself right? You don't have to think about that though, because it's not forced on you! But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources they would gladly trade for a fair enough capitalistic price! 911 happens all the time for them because of one ignorant presidential team called Team Bush. A clear indication of idiotic, inefficient, wasteful, entropic and criminal leadership. Stupidity can be very, very criminal. And our leaders have a real intelligence problem! Look how bad things are going on around the world. Look at the economy. What is good, was happening when Clinton was in office, but once these idiots got in power, the so-called "terrorism" and wars began and the economy has went to crap. The president is anti-science to boot. See what happens when religious, dogmatic, nutcases get there way? People kill each other and the economy worsens.

Im glad you got that out of your system. Could you post something constructive now. Its getting tiresome hearing ppl complain about their own lies.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources...

In another thread I pointed out that you post nothing worthwhile, and I stand by my statement.

 

[omin]

I, said: But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources...

In another thread I pointed out that you post nothing worthwhile, and I stand by my statement.

Are you trying to refute my point without stating facts? Let me inform you, using the nothing principle for an argument asserts nothing.

Now, let's get these guys who lack a little upstairs who will do as they're told back home where they act civilly. The problem is, people don't want to say it like it is. Always using the butt kiss grammar to win points but getting us deeper in trouble with those who incite fear to motivate: Bush.

Please do notice, I don't mean anything personal, I'm debating the superior point, but that doesn't mean I think you personally are a bad guy for being less reasonable here. You just need a little light shed on your disorderly thinking implanted by Bush.

 

[omin]

Im glad you got that out of your system. Could you post something constructive now. Its getting tiresome hearing ppl complain about their own lies.

I was merely indicating the destructive influence of the inferior Bush policy, I make no apologies it's destructive versus constructive. I will take you up on your request and say the constructive thing to do is significantly is: remove our troops from Iraq, use trade to composite for the damages to Iraq, and work on a diplomatic policy for similar circumstance in the future. There is nothing destructive about that unless that means removing the destructive influence in our top positions of government right now. But that would be done democratically, when intelligent opinion prevails. And Vote Kerry.

 

[studentx]

I was merely indicating the destructive influence of the inferior Bush policy, I make no apologies it's destructive versus constructive. I will take you up on your request and say the constructive thing to do is significantly is: remove our troops from Iraq, use trade to composite for the damages to Iraq, and work on a diplomatic policy for similar circumstance in the future. There is nothing destructive about that unless that means removing the destructive influence in our top positions of government right now. But that would be done democratically, when intelligent opinion prevails. And Vote Kerry.

Removing the troops from Iraq, what about the hundreds of thousands of iraqis that are risking their lifes helping the US and their new government? Should they be abandoned because a few thousand are fighting them? Do you choose the side of the carbombers that even the Iraqis despise, over the Iraqi police? What about the Kurds? Dont you think betraying them is going to cause problems sometime later...
And what about the ordinary Iraqis.. do they want another dictator or something like Iran? What about the oil?

I think striving for the removal of US troops now isn't constructive, especially when you ally yourself with terrorist carbombers or choose to portay the US as the bigger evil. Remember everytime you hear about a carbomb going off killing Iraqi recruits, its the terrorists who create that mess. Its 50 or 60 Iraqi police who help the US that got killed. And then ask yourself what would these dead Iraqis think of you blaming it on the US.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Are you trying to refute my point without stating facts? Let me inform you, using the nothing principle for an argument asserts nothing.

There is no point in even trying to get through to you. It is like trying to argue with someone who longs for the return of Pol Pot and thinks his victims deserved to die. Where does one even begin? You're as bad as Adam, but I think he made his outrageous statements just to piss people off. With you, I actually think you believe your own bull****, and so I'm not wasting my time. I would just soon try to convince my pit bull to like cats.

 

[russ_watters]

What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? If the person had just talked things through with you without out throwing that punch, do you think you would have become physical yourself?

Only one and the other guy started it. But to apply that to the current situation implies that we started the terrorism thing. We didn't. To be a correct analogy, you have to ask: if someone punched you, do you think you could have stopped the fight by talking to the person? If you're unsure, ask the French. They know.

The question is a little more complicated than you let on though. In the short term, appeasement works. Sign that treaty with Hitler and there will be no war today. Tomorrow may well be a different story...

Same goes for individual hostage situations: If you storm a hijacked plane, odds are that some hostages will die in the crossfire. But if you give into the demands of the hijackers, they (or someone else following their lead) will just hijack another plane. The Israeli no compromise attitude probably killed a few extra hostages in the '70s and '80s, but it entirely eliminated plane hijackings for demands by the '90s. Along a similar vein, kidnapping for ransom in the US is extremely rare these days because the FBI virtually always catches the kidnappers and virtually never gives into their demands.

edit: after now reading post #6, I shouldn't have bothered posting here. Omin, assuming you really believe the things you said, there is a severe disconnect between your perception and reality. Your attitude doesn't help, but what's wors is that much of what you are saying is just plain factually wrong.

 

[omin]

studentx,

Hey, those Iraqis are supporting an invading army resposible for the murder of innocent civilians and theft of Iraqi resources. What in the land of logic are your thinking? Thats normal human behavior to rid yourself of the defecters! It's there own cowardice and stupidity. The true Iraqi spirit will never give into this stupidity! I like how you call those who defend Iraq terrorists, your brainwashing is oh so obvious. Your soundly like a bit of a Bush Nazi. It's okay to burn the innoncent out in the open, just not in an oven.

BTW, the car bombs sound so bad, on naughty naughty, but what Bush did with airborne bombs and what the sanctions created over a million deaths! Learn to use your math when forming logic with your general terms in the debate.

 

[omin]

russ,

The war was started by Team Bush, it was not a response to anything founded or intelligent. It's the intellgence failure of 911 in exemplary self-defining action. It fits the general principle of terror, but with a far increased magnitude of murder! That's Team Bushes influence. The world said NO, everyone knows it, but Bush went ahead. Bush stepped on Democracy.

There is no complication here. That's what propoganda ideals do to brains that can't apply the general rules of cooperation at a macro level. Murdering Iraqis without a basis and stealing there resources without a valid (even economic gain) is stupid and criminal. I speaking here of the most influential points in the matter: Human murder and resources acquired. Murder is proves the insanity of Bushes ideals and the energy gain along with the cost proves Bush is not an economist. Look at the price of fuel now. AS far as defense goes, we are more threatened with terror because of the criminal acts upon the Iraqis. Bush has weakened us on every front of the significant matters.

As far as the Israeli situation, why don't you look at the state itself, rather than one tentative circumstance of highjackings. Israelis will never rid the defense of Arabs against their terrorist homecomming, without genecide with there undiplomatic attitude. THat's an established fact over the last fifty years. The circumstance proves there inability in terms of diplomacy with Arabs. Use that as a model for Iraq and you'll start seeing what we have in store with Iraq. The Israeli attitude will only bring bad economics and inferior diplomacy. We need to ignore there example as one to follow and remember it well as one to avoid. But look at the Israeli Bush go at the Iraqis, what a fool!

I'm disconnected? Well then connect me up, if I'm so gone from reallity. I call a spade a spade and if you don't comprehend because psychological propaganda is more valueable in your mind than the fundamental logic that come out of daily civilized logic ( which is how we should respond), that's you. I'll debate any point I promoted. I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as you can point out it's not accurate enough. But I won't bow in faith like a nazi or present day republican or a christian or muslim to nonsense idiot doctrine!

 

[plover]

omin:

From your posts, it appears that you are from the Middle East. Which country are you from? Also, have you been living in the Middle East during the time the U.S. has occupied Iraq? (I hope my questions are not impolite.)

 

[russ_watters]

omin, there is an unwritten rule on the net that the first person to draw a comparison to the Nazis automatically loses the argument. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, start being reasonable. A good place to start is by dropping the assertion that we're stealing Iraq's oil. It just plain isn't true. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[LURCH]

What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? If the person had just talked things through with you without out throwing that punch, do you think you would have become physical yourself?

Is it psychological states and beliefs systems that increase the chance more that a person will physically act out upon you or the fact they were just hit by you? Which significanty is more relevant in increasing the threat of being hit?

I have a poll question about whether diplomacy or war elevates the terror threat level in your opinion, based upon your experience and knowledge in life.

What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

We were at peace with Afghanistan when they attacked (all the times they attacked). If we had remained at peace, we would have continued to be attacked. Because we went to war, we will be attacked. But with war, the enemies ability to attack is decreased, so the future attacks will be less severe than they would have been, had we remained at "peace". The only negotiation tyhe terrorists would accept is total compliance with their demands. And their only demand is that everyone not like them must die. This is an unnacceptable condition, IMHO.

 

[JohnDubYa]

We even helped the Mujahadeen in their fight for freedom. As soon as they gain it, they attack us anyway. Maybe we should have supplied the Russians with weapons instead. At least they are less likely to stab us in the back (or cut off our heads).

 

[JohnDubYa]

I should also mention that in Kosova we stuck up for Muslims against marauding Christians. Did we ever receive even a shred of gratitude?

One of the real harms that has come from this situation is appear the next time a Muslim country is in distress and asks for our help, as they have in the past.

 

[studentx]

Omin, you betray the majority of Iraqis with your reasoning. Try and find out what the Iraqis really want before you pretend to speak for them.

 

[studentx]

studentx,

Hey, those Iraqis are supporting an invading army resposible for the murder of innocent civilians and theft of Iraqi resources. What in the land of logic are your thinking? Thats normal human behavior to rid yourself of the defecters! It's there own cowardice and stupidity. The true Iraqi spirit will never give into this stupidity! I like how you call those who defend Iraq terrorists, your brainwashing is oh so obvious. Your soundly like a bit of a Bush Nazi. It's okay to burn the innoncent out in the open, just not in an oven.

BTW, the car bombs sound so bad, on naughty naughty, but what Bush did with airborne bombs and what the sanctions created over a million deaths! Learn to use your math when forming logic with your general terms in the debate.

Ok let me get this straight, your angry at Bush for killing Iraqis, and now you think its ok for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and government and the millions in their familys to be murdered because theyre traitors...
Are there any Iraqis you DONT consider traitors?

 

[omin]

plover,

No I'm not from the middle east. I'm full-blooded America. I am very rigorous about using the relative principle, in common terms the golden rule. Many people make the mistake of thinking you need to take the dogmatic version of it, which means to take only one relative side, that's not relativity, that's dogma and stupidity. That's many of these brainwashed victims mistake here. Some one has to argue the superior principles and I'm taking them on.

russ,

that unwritten rule sounds to be based on the assertion that only Nazis own the principle of a brainwashed heard that goes to murder the innocent. We need not ever forget the Nazi stupidity. The republicans may have less magnitude at this point in support of equivlanet principles in murdering Iraqis and Arabs in general, but do we need to wait for the millions to add up to get rid of the the so-called unwritten rule on the internet?

LURCH,

As long as you base your assumption on Osama, you give Team Bush a green light to murder at the cost of America tax money, America lives and most importantly Arab lives and their resources, which they will gladly trade with intelligent American leadership. There has been no valid proof Afganistan was responsible for 911. Give me the website that shows a scientific analysis of reasoning and evidence that proves it. It doesn't exist. Enough Ossamauptions.

studentx,

If indeed 911 was an outside job, and they had succeeded to invade America, the first Americans to line up to support the occupation of my county or state would be in my crosshairs. I do not have any respect for a fellow citizen who would sign up with the murdering occupyers of my state to turn there guns and pull the trigger upon my grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, infants and adults. I expect this to be understood no less by Iraqis. I hate it that my misleadership is putting Iraqis in such a horrible circumstance. I use the golden rule, the relativity principle, rather than the dogma principle to establish my arguments. If you got something better, bring it on and I'll take your side, but until you can have respect for 'us' and 'them' with dignity in your arugument I'm standing for the intelligent perspective.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Good post omin. For a sobering thought on your comparison, see this analogy from Juan Cole, a professor and expert on Islamic thought.

 

[JohnDubYa]

No I'm not from the middle east. I'm full-blooded America.

You're not a foreigner? My God, you have the writing skills of a third-grader. For example...

I hate it that my misleadership is putting Iraqis in such a horrible circumstance.

Then quit misleading people.

 

[studentx]

studentx,

If indeed 911 was an outside job, and they had succeeded to invade America, the first Americans to line up to support the occupation of my county or state would be in my crosshairs. I do not have any respect for a fellow citizen who would sign up with the murdering occupyers of my state to turn there guns and pull the trigger upon my grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, infants and adults. I expect this to be understood no less by Iraqis. I hate it that my misleadership is putting Iraqis in such a horrible circumstance. I use the golden rule, the relativity principle, rather than the dogma principle to establish my arguments. If you got something better, bring it on and I'll take your side, but until you can have respect for 'us' and 'them' with dignity in your arugument I'm standing for the intelligent perspective.

If you were an Iraqi, there is a great chance you lost family under Saddam. If you were an Iraqi, there would be a great chance you joined the new Iraqi police, and not the insurgents. Why? Because that's what the Iraqis have done and are doing, hundreds of times more Iraqis prefer the police force and government over the insurgency. As for those carbombers that blow up Iraqi police, not even the insurgents approve of that and are condemning it. But your not an Iraqi, so you approve carbombings on Iraqis who lost family under Saddam and are willing to point your crosshairs on them...

How do you explain more Iraqis joining government and police than the insurgency? The only logical conclusion you should draw from this is that your reasoning is incorrect and you have no idea what its like to be an Iraqi, or what they want.

 

[omin]

If you were an Iraqi, there is a great chance you lost family under Saddam. If you were an Iraqi, there would be a great chance you joined the new Iraqi police, and not the insurgents. Why? Because that's what the Iraqis have done and are doing, hundreds of times more Iraqis prefer the police force and government over the insurgency. As for those carbombers that blow up Iraqi police, not even the insurgents approve of that and are condemning it. But your not an Iraqi, so you approve carbombings on Iraqis who lost family under Saddam and are willing to point your crosshairs on them...

How do you explain more Iraqis joining government and police than the insurgency? The only logical conclusion you should draw from this is that your reasoning is incorrect and you have no idea what its like to be an Iraqi, or what they want.

NO!, there's a bigger chance I would have lost a family member to Bush or Clinton's dead-beat sanction attitude. Better go back and count how many Iraqis died under American policy compared to Saddams policy, over the last ten years. American murder count on Iraqis is at about a million. It's called trinkle down holocaust.

That will answer the rest of your response, because your argument is based on the false assuption that Saddam has been worse to his own people in the last ten years than the idiotic American admistration handling the situation in Iraq.

To get things back on track, I don't want anyone playing the turn the Arab against the Arab game, I want us out and promoting diplomacy and trading for oil, not stealling it. This is not a murder policy. Now, do you have a problem with that or do you promote plans that are nothing more than insurance plans for Arab trinkle down holocaust and elevated terror upon Americans as the brainwashed would call it?

John,
I already whipped your hiney on every point in the argument, don't you have something better than that?

 

[plover]

I hate it that my misleadership is putting Iraqis in such a horrible circumstance.

Then quit misleading people.

It would be nice to believe you were making a joke here, but I've seen you misread things this badly too many times. Do you honestly think that sentence makes sense in context if 'misleadership' does not refer to the current administration?

 

[plover]

For a sobering thought on your comparison, see this analogy from Juan Cole, a professor and expert on Islamic thought.

(Woohoo – someone else here reads Juan Cole! )

I thought his post was an interesting concept, but that he actually didn't go far enough. The situation he lays out will inevitably be thought of as starting from the U.S. as it is, which doesn't take into account that the Iraqis started from the position of having been ruled by Saddam Hussein, having had good parts of their infrastructure destroyed, having lived under sanctions for years...

 

[JohnDubYa]

It would be nice to believe you were making a joke here, but I've seen you misread things this badly too many times. Do you honestly think that sentence makes sense in context if 'misleadership' does not refer to the current administration?

I was quite clearly pointing out poor English. Read my post again. I knew what he meant.

 

[JohnDubYa]

NO!, there's a bigger chance I would have lost a family member to Bush or Clinton's dead-beat sanction attitude. Better go back and count how many Iraqis died under American policy compared to Saddams policy, over the last ten years. American murder count on Iraqis is at about a million. It's called trinkle down holocaust.

State your source.

 

[plover]

I was quite clearly pointing out poor English. Read my post again. I knew what he meant.

Yes, it was clear that you were indicating the poor English. No, it was not obvious that you knew what he meant (otherwise I wouldn't have said anything). It is now clear that your answer to my question is no.

 

[studentx]

NO!, there's a bigger chance I would have lost a family member to Bush or Clinton's dead-beat sanction attitude. Better go back and count how many Iraqis died under American policy compared to Saddams policy, over the last ten years. American murder count on Iraqis is at about a million. It's called trinkle down holocaust.

So you think Saddam killed less than a million ppl with his wars? Better go over the numbers again. As for sanctions, the blame lies entirely at Saddam. Since you are opposed to war, sanctions were the only alternative. Or are you saying both war and sanctions are wrong, and let me guess... you don't have any alternatives?

 

[Smurf]

The Alternative would have been supporting one of the few attempted rebel uprisings perhapse?

 

[JohnDubYa]

The Left would have complained about that too. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

And Saddam would have crushed any uprising, US supported or not.

 

[studentx]

Its obvious if the US supports an Iraqi uprising then these Iraqis become puppets of the US and we all know its ok to carbomb those

 

[JohnDubYa]

It would be called "an illegal war." And if anyone innocent was killed, they would have mentioned that we supplied the weapons.

 

[omin]

Read Your Facts, Drop the spin, 1,000,000

State your source.

United Nations.

The US led sanctions are responsible for a million deaths and 100,000 are children from what I remember.

Did Saddam do that to his people. No! THis was at the direct command of criminally insane American Leaders. THere was no cause for doing this to Iraqis. Do you have a basis for this? Could you justify this? I'd love to hear that. It's an intelligence question for sure. And if you think you can justify it, can you say HITLER? It's a different kinda holocaust.

But, the most important element of that is, that Iraqis are most likely to remember who did how much to their own people. In light of that, American leadership is not more disliked, but hated for till the end of their lifetimes. That's how the fine human logic works for all humans in the same circumstances. That's why Bush will never get his way, even if he steals office again for four years. The last few years went by so quick our heads our spinning, and the spin doctore make the entropy that is occurring look like progress. It will only get worse and four years will be a new maginude of stupidity that the democrats will have to clean up. In light of things, I'm sure they won't be dead-beats this time.

 

[JohnDubYa]

United Nations.

The US led sanctions are responsible for a million deaths and 100,000 are children from what I remember.

In other words, you have no source. Show us where the United Nations ever said that the US was responsible for a million deaths, Mr. Dan Rather.

Do you have a basis for this?

I am not going to respond to unproven allegations. Show us the goods.

 

[omin]

State your source.

Let me give you a little secret. It's called google. If you can't find it using google, I think you need to learn how to do simple searchs on the internet using key words. You might find help from a community college extension office in your area who'll probably provide this service free.

For now, "death toll", "Iraq" and "sanctions" "ten years" should lead you to the source. United nations will have their studies ready for your viewing, if you care enough to find the data. It was Iraqi deaths at the hands of American leaders.

As far as showing goods, why don't we move in chronological order. Bush seems to eminate from your argumentative methods. The invasion of Iraq, the murder of Iraqis, and the stealling of their resources has no prior or post justification(assuming we alow appeal to ignorance as valid), where are the "Goods" for this? Is it petty-Hitler Republican propaganda promoting the war? Not enough. No evidence, means no intellgence. You need to support your position of the agreement to murder Iraqis and take there resources and force upon them a political structure they do not want. This can't be found in any newspaper or websight, because I've followed along these past years and Bush doesn't provide empirical evidence for his actions. HE IS A LIVNG BREATHING APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. He's an unscientific, religious, republican idiot that if his team steals the office again will have another four years of wasted time, where Iraq will have gained more support internally and externally against Bush and his connections witht he so-called leaders in Iraq and domestically it will be eight years of dead beat policiy in America. Bush is the biggest dead beat and rollbacker to regressive laws we've seen in decades.

If Bush does steal office again, Democrats are guarteed a good three terms of clean up, because a Republican four years will be have an a higher entropic rate than the last term.

It's only Americans like me who guarantee that Iraqis have someone who actually understands them with respect, instead of pitying them or taking the attitude that they need to be murdered. Remember that, while things gradually turn worse for Repubican murder operations and better for the Democratic diplomacy they will implement in the future. They have a right to defend themselve against stupidity, even if that stupidity is a brainwashed group of people who misuderstand what it means to defend there homeland and traded that logic in on murdering others who are not striking against any humans on Earth. They are simple defending their homeland.

There is no way to eliminate the death wish upon the present Iraqi adiministration put in by Republicans. That's nature, it's inertia has been timeless, even if you can't understand it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I did, and nothing from the United Nations appeared. Again, state your source. You made the claim, you are the one obligated to provide the link.

 

[studentx]

i second that. State your source

 

[omin]

So you think Saddam killed less than a million ppl with his wars? Better go over the numbers again. As for sanctions, the blame lies entirely at Saddam. Since you are opposed to war, sanctions were the only alternative. Or are you saying both war and sanctions are wrong, and let me guess... you don't have any alternatives?

Been there. Done that. I'm including the ten year war. But you must categorize based upon the actions taken there. And this is out the context anyway. You go back and check.

The link to the source that I could find is:

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...tionsreportsonmassivedeathtoll--fromsanctions

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

This comment alone implies that numbers are very high, otherwise it would have been refuted at the time of the interview.

Because of the main stream printing of the statistics and that UN is cited as it's source, that 1,000,000 deaths of been created by the sanctions, and has not been refuted in mainstream press, I am inclined to think it's founded.

The best Bush has done is say Saddam was starving his people. Sorry, the sanctions weren't Saddam idea or inertia.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, let us suppose your assertion that half a million children (or adults, it isn't clear) died from the sanctions.

George W. Bush removed the sanctions. So if the US is solely responsible for the deaths under the sanctions, shouldn't Bill Clinton bear the brunt of the blame for the deaths? Shouldn't George W. be praised for taking action that led to the removal of the sanctions?

And didn't the United Nations initiate an oil-for-food program? What did Saddam do with the money and food? How can we be blamed when we provided the food but Saddam refused to give it to his people?

And no, I don't blame Bill Clinton for the deaths under UN sanctions. Saddam is every bit to blame, however.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I have never liked sanctions. They didn't work on Mussolini, and they didn't work on Saddam. They attack the common people, and leave the elites alone. But like the old League of Nations, the UN is limited to actions aginst nations, not individuals or regimes, and sanctions are about the only tool they have. That about guarantees the UN will be ineffective in imposing its will on rogue states.

 

[JohnDubYa]

There is one more tool the UN has, but they were unwilling to use it. So Bush had to do it for them.

 

[omin]

Okay, let us suppose your assertion that half a million children (or adults, it isn't clear) died from the sanctions.

George W. Bush removed the sanctions. So if the US is solely responsible for the deaths under the sanctions, shouldn't Bill Clinton bear the brunt of the blame for the deaths? Shouldn't George W. be praised for taking action that led to the removal of the sanctions?

He removed the sanctions out of the kindness of his heart? No. When he got into office he would have done that first, because that would proved intelligent intentions. He removed sanctions because it part of his terror strategy upon the Iraqis. He went into Iraq murdering and stealing. Because of this behaviour, to decrease the threat of strikes against invaders and American homeland and decrease the existing world condemnation of the attack upon innoncence, he must atleast feed them and provide the with some things his kind was holding back from Iraqi people during the sanctions. THis of course keeps the holocaust trinkle-down, even though the rate of entropy increase during the invasion. You are just like a idiot republican, you prove your mental disorder by representing things in disorder that fits your limited murder, theiving petty-Nazi theories. Get ahold yourself! The republican propoganda has meind confistated your reasoning!

And didn't the United Nations initiate an oil-for-food program? What did Saddam do with the money and food? How can we be blamed when we provided the food but Saddam refused to give it to his people?.

In otherwords, if Iraq didn't sell oil to those who imposed ridiculous sanctions upon innocent civilians the sanctions were killing, they would get no food. You know, you have limited mental capacity to reason, when you can only see things from one side. What did he do with the money and food? How in the heck do you use money for things you need if sanctions eliminate what you do need? You can't buy what you need. Duh! The food, oh, Saddam probably ate it, huh! Or traded it for things he couldn't get. Get a grip! Did you get your logic from a kindergartn nonsense rhymes? By the way, they didn't get a reasonable deal on the oil anyway.

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet. There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death. You are hook line and sinker petty-Nazi Repbulican propogandized citizen. Be patient and your mind may clear up with simple reasoing.

And no, I don't blame Bill Clinton for the deaths under UN sanctions. Saddam is every bit to blame, however.

I do Blame Clinton and the American powers behind the sanctions. Unlike you who blame somebody who actually didn't apply the sanctions. The sanctions were applied without justification either. Which you cannot provide nor anyone.

I just don't know why Clinton was a deadbeat. But, I know for a fact he was because the trinkle down holocaust occurred and it helped neither the US or anyone on the planet who could have benefited from Iraqi acceptance in trade. In light of these among other points, the Democrats have learned a lesson, Bush isn't applying to the situation.

 

[studentx]

He removed the sanctions out of the kindness of his heart? No.

Proof your assertion.

He removed sanctions because it part of his terror strategy upon the Iraqis.

proof your assertion.

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet.

Proof your assertion.

There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death.

The Iraqis disagree with you, in particular the Marsh arabs (most of which now lie buried in the Iraqi desert).

 

[JohnDubYa]

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet. There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death. You are hook line and sinker petty-Nazi Repbulican propogandized citizen.

I think it is pretty clear that you are a troll. I'm done with you.